Close of the Council

IN a letter which was sent on July 10, the British diplomatic agent Odo Russell reported to Archbishop Manning that the French, Hungarian, and German opposition had resolved to stand fast against the definition of papal infallibility, "which they have unanimously declared to be unacceptable." 1 Two days later, the English diplomat had more encouraging news. A preliminary roll call on the constitution De Romano Pontifice was scheduled for Wednesday, July 13, and Russell had been informed that unless the minority polled at least eighty votes on that occasion they would absent themselves from the final public session at which the constitution would be promulgated in the presence of the pope. He estimated that no more than fifteen fathers would in any case be "courageous enough to say 'No'" at the public session, and concluded: "I reckon now with certainty on a unanimous placet." 2

The first order of business at the eighty-fifth general congregation on July 13 was the granting of leaves of absence to eighteen bishops, including Domenec, Dubuis, Fitzgerald, and Gibbons. The fathers then voted to accept Chapters IV and V of the constitution. The stage was set for the ballot on the constitution as a whole. When it came to a vote, 451 gave their unqualified

1 Russell to Manning, Rome, Sunday night [ July 10, 1870], in Purcell, II, 443.
2 Russell to Manning, Rome, Tuesday [ July 12, 1870], in Purcell, II, 443-4.

approval, another sixty-two approved conditionally, and eightyeight voted non placet. Twenty-eight prelates from the United States took part in this voting. Eighteen accepted the constitution without comment, three approved it on condition that it be amended in certain particulars, and seven rejected it. 3 All told, the sixty-two fathers who suggested changes in the text submitted some 200 amendments, and these were referred to the deputation on faith. 4 One of the Americans who proposed an amendment to the constitution felt that the formula of the definition of papal infallibility was not strong enough, and that it still left a loophole through which "the perverse and heretics" might escape. This was Archbishop Blanchet, who recommended that the scope of the object of infallibility be broadened and explicitated. 5 His request was never formally considered by the deputation. In a letter to James A. McMaster on July 12, either Blanchet or his close associate, Bishop Demers of Vancouver, explained the motives behind this petition. It was prompted by the fear that "Febronian" and "Gallican" elements might yet prevail. The letter declared: "They promise everything--agree to everything-if the exact terms that, specifically, condemn their heresy, be omitted. If this compromise is made, the Council will not kill these heresies." 6 Some months later, Blanchet paid a personal visit to the New York editor to explain his vote of July 13. As McMaster put it in his own inimitable prose, the archbishop

3 Mansi, LII, 1241-53. Americans who voted placet were: Spalding, Alemany, Bayley, Conroy, Dubuis, de Goesbriand, Elder, Heiss, Henni, Lootens, Loughlin, Miége, O'Hara, Rappe, St.-Palais, Shanahan, Williams, and Wimmer. Voting placet juxta modum were: Blancher, John McCloskey, and Amat. Those who voted non placet were Kenrick, Domenec, Fitzgerald, William McCloskey, McQuaid, and Mrak. All the other United States bishops had either left Rome or else absented themselves from the session. One of those who fell into the latter category, Ryan of Buffalo, was prevented from attending by a near-fatal illness. ( Ryan to Pius IX, Rome, September 10, 1870, in Mansi, LIII, 1050-51.)
4 Butler, II, 152.
5 Mansi, LII, 1297; Betti, p. 494.
6 Freeman's Journal, October 15, 1870. McMaster identified his correspondent only as "a man not young in the episcopate." Demers had written to him on previous occasions, and on July 13 he suggested an amendment similar to Blanchet's. ( Mansi, LII, 1297, 1302.)

indicated that he had intended to register a protest that the formula of the definition was not "potent enough to kill the dirty snake of Gallicanism." 7

A second archbishop from the United States who recorded himself as not completely pleased with the text was John McCloskey. His objection recalled previous American protests, and he was seconded by Ullathorne of Birmingham and others. They wanted the anathema at the end of Chapter IV dropped, and the primitive formulation of the constitution restored, so that those who refused to accept the definition would be solemnly admonished that they were deviating from Catholic truth, but without the threatening overtones of the anathema formula. Like Blanchet's proposal, this recommendation was never considered. 8

The voting of July 13 provided Bishop Amat with his last opportunity to make some of the concise suggestions which had so impressed Ullathorne, and he availed himself of the occasion by proposing modifications to the introduction and to three of the four chapters of the constitution. His first request was for an explicit statement that the purpose of Peter's primacy was not that the episcopate become one, but that it be preserved in the unity which its Founder had given it. 9 This amendment was declared not germane to the argument by Bishop Bartolomeo d'Avanzo, who spoke on behalf of the deputation at the eightysixth general congregation on July 16. 10 Amat's next objection was to the rhetorical language of Chapter II. He restated his earlier opposition to the attribution of the term fidei columna to Peter, and he suggested that in a dogmatic decree it ought not be said that no one had ever doubted the primacy of the pope, or that everyone had acknowledged it for centuries, when, as a matter of fact, the contradictory of these assertions was nearer the truth. 11 D'Avanzo disallowed both these emendations. 12 The

10 Mansi, LII, 1305.
11 Mansi, LII, 1267-8; Betti, p. 461.
12 Mansi: LII, 1306-07.
7 Freeman's Journal, November 26, 1870.
8 Mansi, LII, 1301; Betti, p. 499.
9 Mansi, LII, 1265; Betti, pp. 450, 453.

Bishop of Monterey-Los Angeles had two changes to propose for Chapter III. He asked, as he had during the debates, for a clearer distinction between matters of faith and morals and those which pertained to discipline, explaining that in the one case there was question of obedience to the pope as guardian of the deposit of faith and in the other of the principle of hierarchical subordination. Secondly, he requested omission of the phrase "in each and every church," which was used to designate the object of the pope's ordinary and immediate supreme power. In the course of the debates it had been suggested that the phrase seemed to reflect on the unity of the Church. 13 Neither of these proposals was accepted, and Bishop Federico Zinelli rejected them for the deputation as unnecessary and so drastic as to demand a completely new vote on the chapter. 14

Chapter IV contained the definition of papal infallibility, and Amat submitted two revisions to its text. He and several others felt that the phrasing of the chapter implied that the help of the Holy Spirit had been promised only to the successors of St. Peter. They wanted it made clear that the promise had been made to the whole Church. 15 The California prelate also made one last effort to have the actual text of the definition changed to accommodate the views of the minority. Eleven other bishops submitted amendments analogous to his. Their hope was that the definition would state that the pope acted as spokesman for the Church when he pronounced a solemn definition, and that he did so after having ascertained the Church's faith by consultation with the bishops. Amat's specific suggestion was that the object of papal infallibility be designated as "doctrine on faith or morals contained in the deposit committed to the Church." 16 Bishop Vincenz Gasser was the last representative of the deputation on faith to address the council, and in his closing speech on July 16,

13 Mansi, LII, 1275; Betti, pp. 476-7.
14 Mansi, LII, 1313.
15 Mansi, LII, 1282; Betti, p. 486.
16 Mansi, LII, 1294; Betti, p. 492.

he passed over Amat's amendments to Chapter IV in silence. 17

While the members of the deputation on faith were considering the amendments submitted on July 13, the international committee of the minority met to plan their final strategy. On Thursday, July 14, Russell informed Manning that they were "flushed with their success" of the previous day, and that they hoped to win over forty of those who had voted placet juxta modum, so as to ensure 120 non placets in the public session. The English agent reported that Bishop Ketteler and others had announced a list of concessions which would be the price of their approval for the constitution, and he told Manning that "Villa Graziola [sic] has sent a bulletin to the press announcing a great victory--a moral Sadowa." 18 That same evening, Russell wrote again to Manning, to tell him that Archbishop Darboy, "who now takes the credit of the Minority vote to himself," planned to visit Cardinal Bilio and dictate his terms to him. Darboy, he reported, was confident that the opposition would reach 140 votes. 19 Russell's next despatch was dated Friday night, July 15. He had learned that the international committee was sending a five-man delegation to the Pope, headed by Darboy. They were to make two demands. The first of these was for the deletion from Chapter III of the assertion that the Pope possessed the "whole plenitude" of supreme power in the Church. The second demand was for inclusion in the definition of infallibility of a statement that the pope relied on the consent of the Church in making infallible pronouncements. Russell added that in the event that these requests were refused, the opposition would vote non placet at the public session. 20

17 Mansi, LII, 1314-7.
18 Russell to Manning, Rome, Thursday [ July 14, 1870], in Purcell, II, 443. Dupanloup's Roman residence was the Villa Grazioli.
19 Russell to Manning, Rome, Thursday night [ July 14, 1870], in Purcell, II, 442-3.
20 Russell to Manning, Rome, Friday night [ July 15, 1870], in Purcell, II, 446. Six bishops composed the delegation. See Butler, II, 156-7. On July 16, Darboy presented a memorandum of their conversation to the pope ( Mansi, LII, 1322; Butler, II, 157).

These activities of the minority had not gone unnoticed, and Bishop Senestré?y duly recorded them in his diary. He further recorded that the pope refused to entertain the opposition petitions and referred them back to the council. 21 According to Döllinger, the pontiff had at first seemed disposed to consider the requests, but he was deterred from doing so by the intervention of Senestréy and Manning. 22 The stage was thus set for the eighty-sixth general congregation on July 16. We have already seen the disposition which was made then of the amendments which had been proposed by American bishops on July 13. In point of fact, only two of the two-hundred-odd suggestions submitted were brought to a vote on July 16. One of these was of capital importance, since it reflected the extent of the majority's triumph. The minority had asked as the price of their agreement the inclusion of a declaration that the pope, in making infallible pronouncements, relied on the consent of the Church. Instead of inserting this qualification, the deputation proposed, and the council accepted, a statement to the effect that papal decisions which were irreformable were so of themselves, "but not because of the consent of the Church." The minority viewpoint was thus definitively rejected. The session ended after the fathers had voted to censure two pamphlets which had appeared attacking the council. These were Ce qui passe au Concile and La dernière heure du Concile. It was then announced that general permission had been granted for any members of the council who wished to leave the city. They were to be permitted to absent themselves until November 11. 23 The implied invitation to the members of the minority who could not reconcile themselves to an affirmative vote in public session was obvious. Although the minutes of the council recorded a unanimous standing vote for the censure of the two pamphlets just mentioned, only forty-two fathers seem to have subscribed the written protests against them which were distributed during the congregation. Among them was

21 Mansi, LIII, 285-6.
22 Döllinger's account of the interview is in Quirinus, pp. 800-803.
23 Mansi, LII, 1317-9.

Dubuis of Galveston. 24 The New York Tribune later reported that an unnamed American archbishop had declared that La dernière heare du Concile gave a true picture of the situation. 25

On Sunday, July 17, the day before the fourth public session, at which the constitution Pastor Aeternus was to be proclaimed, the international committee held a final meeting. Darboy was ill, and Haynald took the lead in proposing that the opposition attend the public session in force and record a negative vote. He was opposed in this by Dupanloup, who carried the day. By a vote of 36 to 28, the committee resolved to recommend that opponents of the definition absent themselves on the following morning and content themselves with a letter of protest. 26 Two copies of this letter were made. One was addressed to the pope and one to the presidents of the council. They were given to the secretary of the council, Bishop Fessler, at 7 A.M. on the morning of July 18, together with a covering letter from Cardinal Schwarzenberg. 27

The minority letter simply recalled the fact that they had voted against the constitution on July 13, and that others had voted placet juxta modum or absented themselves. Nothing, they continued, had happened since to make them change their opinions, and they would therefore be unable to do other than vote non placet at the public session. Since filial piety towards the Holy Father forbade this, they stated that they would leave Rome and return to their flocks. The letter ended with a prayer for the pope and for the Church and the assurance of their faith and obedience. It was signed by fifty-five bishops, including the three Americans Kenrick, Vérot, and Domenec. 28 Bishop Fitzgerald of Little Rock was one of six additional prelates who handed in separate statements to the same effect. He asked that his name not be called at the public session, since he could not

24 Mansi, LII, 1260-61.
25 New York Tribune, August 11, 1870, in Beiser, p. 87.
26 Russell to Manning, Rome, Sunday [ July 17, 1870], in Purcell, II, 447; Butler, II, 157-8; Mansi, LIII, 286.
27 Mansi, LII, 1324-5.
28 Mansi, LII, 1324-8.

vote except negatively. 29 Another opponent, Bishop McQuaid, had obtained permission to leave the council on July 16. He informed Father Early of this on the seventeenth, and added:

Tomorrow, the public session will be held in which the final voting on the Infallibility will take place. They have ended by making the definition as absolute and strict as it was possible to make it. As a consequence a large non-placet vote will be recorded against it. What will be the consequence in some of these European countries God only knows. 30

McQuaid's ignorance of the decision reached by the international committee, as well as the absence of his name from the letter of protest which the committee submitted, would seem to indicate that he felt the best course was to dissociate himself completely from further connection with the infallibility debate. He told Early that there was little chance that the council would be able to resume in November, because of the outbreak of the FrancoPrussian War, and he indicated that in any case he did not intend to participate any further in its discussions.

The twin dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility were proclaimed by Pius IX amidst great splendor, and, as is well known, to the accompaniment of thunder and lightning, on the morning of July 18. The fathers of the council and distinguished guests were summoned to appear in the Basilica of St. Peter at 9 A.M. Red vestments were to be worn by all the prelates, and Cardinal Lorenzo Barili opened the ceremonies by celebrating the Mass of the Holy Spirit. After the Mass had been finished, the pope arrived and, after prayers were said, Bishop Antonio Maria Valenziani read the entire text of the constitution Pastor Aeternus aloud. A roll-call vote was then taken, the pope gave a short speech, the Te Deum was chanted, and the fourth public session of the council was at an end. 31

Five hundred and thirty-three fathers voted placet when their

29 Fitzgerald to Fessler, Rome, July 17, 1870, in Mansi, LII, 1328.
30 McQuaid to Early, Rome, July 17, 1870, in Browne, p. 440.
31 Mansi, LII, 1327-36.

names were called, while only two voted non placet. One of these was Luigi Riccio of Cajazzo in southern Italy. The other was Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas. What prompted Fitzgerald to vote "no" at the public session has never been satisfactorily explained. At least for a time he maintained a separate establishment in Rome, in the Via Rasella, and so he may not have been apprised of the decision of the minority bishops to absent themselves. The fact that he did not sign their letter of protest, but sent in one of his own might lend credence to this theory. In his letter to Fessler on July 17, Fitzgerald had asked only that his name not be called. It would seem that he at least considered the possibility of attending the public session as a passive spectator. However, once he was in the council hall, he sent an usher to Fessler to ask that he be recognized as present. 32 When he was in consequence asked for his vote, he responded with a non placet. Immediately after the balloting, he came down from his place and approached the papal throne to make his profession of faith with the words, "Now I believe, Holy Father." 33 One contemporary observer suggested that Fitzgerald had been taken unawares when his name was given out by mistake, but this conflicts with the official version as given in the acts of the council. 34 Another theory--which partakes more of the nature of legend--is that he actually said "Nunc placet" but was erroneously thought to have said "Non placet." 35 Whatever the reason, the Bishop of Little Rock has gone down in history as one of the two prelates in the council to cast a negative vote at the session of July 18.

Twenty-five Americans were present to vote placet. They were Archbishops Spalding, Alemany, Blanchet, and John McCloskey, Bishops Amat, Bayley, Conroy, Dubuis, Elder, Gib-

32 Mansi, LII, 1328.
33 Ibid.
34 Henri Ramière, S. J., Bulletin du Concile, No. 33 ( July 28, 1870), 152.
35 Robert F. McNamara, The American College in Rome, 1855-1955 ( Rochester: 1956), p. 181.

bons, de Goesbriand, Heiss, Henni, Lootens, Loughlin, William McCloskey, Midge, O'Connell, O'Hara, Persico, Rappe, St.-Palais, Shanahan, Williams, and Abbot Wimmer. 36 The eighteen prelates who had voted placet on July 13 all remained to cast their ballot on July 18. They were joined by Archbishop Blanchet, who had never been opposed to the definition, by three bishops who were absent from the eighty-fifth general congregation, namely, Gibbons, O'Connell, and Persico; by Archbishop John McCloskey and Bishop Amat, both of whom had given only a conditional approval on July 13; and by Bishop William McCloskey of Louisville, who had been identified with the minority ever since his arrival in Rome.

Letters from young American ecclesiastics in Rome provide some additional information on the events of July 18. Benjamin Keiley wrote accurately enough to his family that 535 fathers had attended the final session, and he reported that eighty stayed away, among them Kenrick and Vérot. He had gone to the basilica for the ceremonies, and recorded his emotions at seeing Archbishop Manning: "I felt like raising a cheer when I saw glorious Abp Manning come out--the grandest man in the Council--whom all lukewarm Catholics sneer at and infidels and heretics revile--Manning whom I cannot even see without feeling such a sensation of enthusiastic devotion toward him." 37 Peter Geyer and Patrick H. Cusack, two recently ordained priests of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, reported the day's events to Archbishop Purcell:

His Grace the Mt. Rev. Dr. Kenrick is gone from Rome; he left the evening before the public session of the Council which was held on the 18th. . . . In the voting, which was public and could be heard by the people in the Church particularly by those nearest the door of the Aula, there were but two 'Non Placets.' 'Tis said that a large number of the Opposition were not in attendance. The rumor is pretty true this time.

It is false that Dr. Spalding is very ill; it is doubtful that he has been ill at all since you left. Rt. Rev. Bp. Gibbons had a little fever

36 Mansi, LII, 1337- 1347.
37 ADC, Keiley Papers, Keiley to "Home Folks, Rome, July 18, 1870.

of three or four days. Rt. Rev. Bp. Ryan came near dying with inflammation of the bowels. He has been sick for two or three weeks, and he may not be yet out of danger, though he is not as bad as he was. The most of the American prelates are gone from our house. Bp. Vérot went to Naples this morning and will leave when he returns. Bishop Fitzgerald goes this evening; Bishop Loughlin on Saturday next. 38

There was one last social note to bring that eventful July 18 to a close. On the evening of the definition, thirty-one bishops of the Irish race assembled at the Irish College to present an address to Cardinal Cullen, congratulating him for his able and successful vindication in the council of the rights of the Holy See and of the tradition of the Irish Church in their regard. Bishop Eugene O'Connell of Grass Valley was the only prelate from the United States who was present. 39

Word of the definition which he awaited so eagerly does not seem to have reached James A. McMaster for some days. However, in the July 30 issue of the Freeman's Journal he commented on telegraphic reports concerning the role of Bishop Fitzgerald:

A telegram from Rome perpetrates an abominable outrage on one of our youngest Prelates, in saying he was one of two dissidents, in a General Council of five hundred and thirty-eight Prelates. The names are given of the Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas and of some bishop in Eastern Europe. We denounce it, as the ill-timed pleasantry of some miserably poor wit in Rome. Dr. Fitzgerald is not the man to put himself in so desperately false a position. The Archbishop of Cincinnati is his friend; and the Archbishop of St. Louis is his Metropolitan, but neither of these considerations could ever have so warped the noble intellect of Dr. Fitzgerald as to lead him into a vote against the Pope with the Oecumenical Council assenting, as this lying telegram represents him. We insist on denying the truth of so damaging a story. 40

Two weeks later, McMaster was somewhat better informed, and expressed the pious hope that Fitzgerald would make his sub-

38 AAC, Purcell Papers, Geyer and Cusack to Purcell, Rome, July 20, 1870. 39 Peadar Mac Suibne, "Ireland at the Vatican Council," Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XCIII ( May, 1960), 306-307.
40 Freeman's Journal, July 30, 1870.

mission "as soon as he gets out of the fog." The editor had not yet, it would seem, received a complete account of the July 18 session. The names of the bishops who had left Rome to avoid appearing at the session were still unknown to him, but their anonymity was not proof against editorial barbs. McMaster remarked--as so often and so unconcernedly--inaccurately, that they had left two of their number behind "to carry this new phase of Protestantism to its utmost limit," and he finished off with the judgment: "Whoever they may be, the Catholic Church has no need of them; but they have great need of the Catholic Church." 41

Not all the bishops left Rome immediately. John Baptist Miége remained for some weeks to take care of business for his vicariate, and then traveled home to Kansas via his native France and Ireland. He did not reach Leavenworth until November 20. 42 The adventures of Bishop Ignatius Mrak of Sault-Sainte-Marie and Marquette are worth recording. After a visit to his birthplace in Carinthia, he took passage on the Trieste-Glasgow packet. The ship put into a Sicilian port on the eve of the feast of the Assumption to load a cargo of sulphur. Mrak went ashore and was royally welcomed, since no bishop had set foot in the place in years. The villagers organized a parade in his honor, and he is said to have administered confirmation to a number of the inhabitants. These festivities lasted three days, and the ship captain was so annoyed at the delay that for the rest of the voyage he allowed the bishop and a student who was traveling with him only one fork, knife, and spoon between them. Mrak finally arrived home in October, 1870. During his absence from the diocese he had not written even one letter to his administrator. 43

41 Ibid., August 13, 1870. 42 Peter Beckman, O.S.B., The Catholic Church on the Kansas Frontier: 1850- 1877 ( Washington: 1943), p. 122.
43 Antoine Ivan Rezek, History of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie and Marquette ( Houghton, Michigan: 1906), I, 236.

The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War made travel in Europe difficult. Acton told his friend Lady Blennerhasset: "Among the numerous disappointments which the war brings us, I count this, that the Anglo-Americans, who would have gone by the Brenner, and whom I was hoping to snare at the moment of their release, will take the Mont Cenis route to avoid the armies. I would have liked to present some friends of whom I am proud, like Kenrick and Connolly, to another of whom I am more proud still." 44 By July 28, Bishops Bayley and McQuaid were already in London and preparing to sail on August 13. They had left Rome on the eighteenth. Bayley wrote to Father Corrigan that he had had diphtheria and a bilious attack in Rome, "and was going on from bad to worse when the end came, and we were able to escape from the fiery furnace." 45 One by one, then, the bishops made their way home. For some of them, July 18 ended their active connection with the council. Others continued to be involved with it and with its decrees for some time to come, as will be seen. But it would be fair to say that none of them shared the sentiments of one of McMaster's clerical correspondents, Father Louis Molon of Elyria, Ohio, who had written on July 15: "In the Council of Trent, the Bishops went to the Council as parish priests and they came back as Bishops. This time many of them went to the Council as Popes. I hope they will come back as Bishops." 46

Only three general congregations were held during the summer of 1870. The number in attendance gradually dwindled. On August 13, 136 fathers were present, on August 23 there were 127 on hand, and only 104 attended the final session of the council on September 1. 47 No Americans bishops participated in the desultory debate, although Archbishop Blanchet was named as one of ten new members of the deputation on ecclesiastical

44 Acton Papers, Acton to Blennerhasset, Tegernsee, July, 1870.
45 AANY, C-2, Bayley to Corrigan, London, July 28, 1870.
46 UND, McMaster Papers, Molon to McMaster, Elyria, July 15, 1870.
47 Mansi, LIII, 1 - 36.

discipline at the August 13 meeting. 48 The only significant United States contribution to the summer's work was a memorandum submitted by Bishop Elder for consideration in connection with the proposed schema on apostolic missions. Elder called for the establishment of one universal mission-aid society to collect and distribute alms, so that the amount received by individual missionary areas would not depend on the contacts which bishops of such places were able to make. He further asked that the society be managed by laymen. Besides the obvious advantage that there would be in interesting them in the work of the missions, Elder pointed out that they were better qualified for the task than were priests, and the system would also free priests from temporal cares and give the lie to any possible charges of clerical avarice. Finally, the Bishop of Natchez recommended that the council single out for special praise the Society for the Propagation of the Faith of France which operated along the lines which he would like to see made universal. 49

Before we discuss the sequel to the council, mention should be made of the activities of Archbishop Spalding as a member of the congregation on proposals, the position to which he had been appointed by Pius IX in December. Since none of the proposals on which Spalding worked ever came before the council, the story of his part in them has not been introduced into the general narrative of its history. A digression on the labors of the congregation will also allow an enumeration of the various petitions submitted to it which carried the names of American bishops.

Spalding attended meetings of the congregation on proposals intermittently from February to April. The minutes of the congregation do not indicate that he made any particular contribution to its discussions, except that at two sessions in late February he joined Archbishop Alessandro Riccardi di Netro of Turin in advocating abrogation of the third degree of consan-

48 Mansi, LIII, 1-3.
49 Mansi, LIII, 64-5.

guinity as a matrimonial impediment. 50 Perhaps the most important aspect of his association with the group was the opportunity which it afforded him for contact with some of the leading personalities of the council. On March 3, for example, he was named to a subcommittee headed by Cardinal Constantino Patrizi. Other members were Cardinals Camillo di Pietro and Juan Moreno and Archbishops Dechamps and Manning. 51

The March 14 meeting of the Patrizi subcommittee was its most significant gathering. The members recommended that the council not attempt to make any decrees touching the law of nations or the nature of war and peace, although they felt that it would be proper to issue an exhortation against unjust wars and to urge that the nations seek to promote peace. They also voted to recommend to the pope the codification of canon law, but they were less enthusiastic about the possibility of defining the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady. It is curious to note that they made use of arguments in this connection similar to those which were employed by the minority in the council against a definition of papal infallibility, namely, that it was unnecessary since the doctrine was universally accepted in practice by the faithful, that it was inopportune, given the circumstances of the times and of the council, and that the historical difficulties which would be raised only disturb the traditional belief of Catholics. 52 Spalding's last appearance at a session of the congregation was on April 11. He did not attend the subsequent meetings in April, May, and June. 53

The congregation on proposals received a large number of petitions from individuals or from groups of fathers. Several of these petitions contained the signatures of over half the American hierarchy. A request that the council urge the Jews to accept Christ as the Messias obtained several hundred signers, among

____________________ 50 Mansi, LIII, 671. 51 Mansi, LIII, 677. 52 Mansi, LIII, 687. 53 Mansi, LIII, 687-98.

them thirty from the United States. 54 Twenty-eight of the 118 bishops who petitioned that St. Joseph be declared patron and protector of the universal Church were Americans, and the name of the Archbishop of Baltimore headed the list. 55 Twenty-six United States bishops joined eighty-two others in recommending a statement of praise for the work of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. 56 Other postulata drew more scattered support from the Americans. Miége was the only one of them to put his name to a request that the feast of the Sacred Heart be raised to the highest liturgical rank and that a solemn act of consecration to the Sacred Heart be made in the council. 57 Among the nearly 200 fathers who asked that the Assumption be defined, only Bishops Martin and Miége added their signatures. 58 O'Connell was the lone American representative among the 108 bishops who wanted the words "immaculate virgin" added to the "Hail Mary." 59 Three bishops who were otherwise frequently at odds in the council joined in a June 20 petition asking for greater liturgical honors for St. Joseph and for a declaration that he was the primary patron of the Church after Our Lady. They were Martin, Domenec, and Amat. 60 Another five co-operated in a plea that the council ask bishops to send men and assistance from their dioceses to the Negro missions of central Africa. American signers of that petition were Spalding, Purcell, Bayley, Elder, and Miége. 61 The proposals on the law of nations and the codification of canon law which came before the Patrizi subcommittee also found supporters from the United States. Alemany, Dubuis, and Gibbons signed the former proposal and Alemany, Domenec, Dubuis, and Quinlan the latter. 62 The

54 Mansi, LIII, 554-64.
55 Mansi, LIII, 576-9.
56 Mansi, LIII, 564-7.
57 Mansi, LIII, 657-9.
58 Mansi, LIII, 486.
59 Mansi, LIII, 592-4.
60 Mansi, LIII, 581-4.
61 Mansi, LIII, 634-6.
62 Mansi, LIII, 477-9.

variety of these petitions not only bore witness to the manifold interests of the Americans, but also pointed up the fact that, while they might disagree on the major issues before the council, they remained ready to co-operate with one another in areas which did not touch upon those disagreements.

There is only one more "European" aspect of the council which must be treated before we can return with the bishops to the United States and post-conciliar developments there. This was the attempt made by Spalding to have the meeting place of the council shifted to Malines in Belgium. The Italian occupation of Rome on September 20, 1870 had made it highly doubtful that the council could reconvene in that city. On September 29, Archbishop Dechamps wrote to Manning: "When will the council meet again? Does Your Grace still agree with Monsignor Spalding that it will have to be continued outside of Rome, in Malines for example?" 63 Early in October, Spalding received official notice from Cardinal Bilio that the pope not only permitted, but desired, his return to Baltimore. The cardinal informed him that the council was not only de facto suspended, but that for all practical purposes it was also ended de jure. 64 On October 16, the Archbishop of Baltimore was visiting Dechamps at Malines, and he wrote from there to Cardinal Cullen:

Having received official notification from Cards. Antonelli, Bilio & others, that the Council cannot continue for the present, I am en route for home, & shall probably sail from Liverpool next Saturday, 22nd inst. I regret that I cannot do myself the honor to call on yr. Eminence, but I hope to see you again when the Council will be resumed, which I trust will be next Spring.

By the way, I have a great project, which I have been talking over with Mgr. Dechamps, who is perfectly agreed & would be much pleased at its being favorably entertained. It is, to persuade His Holiness to have the Council continued next Spring--say May 1--in this Old Catholic City; still calling it the Vatican Council.

63 AAM, Dechamps Papers, Dechamps to Manning, Malines, September 29, 1870 (copy).
64 AAB, 35-U-6, Bilio to Spalding, Rome, October 3, 1870

1°(degree) All the Bishops can easily be accommodated here; 2° the sessions could continue throughout the Summer, & in fact throughout the Winter; 3° the Bishops would not only not be molested in this truly Catholic old town, where Free Masons have no foothold, but the people would honor them & think themselves greatly honored. 4° This being a free country (not in name, but in deed), the government could not interfere; 5° The five Card. Presidents could attend as in Rome, & report daily, hourly in fact if needed, by telegraph with Rome, or through some confidential person who could communicate freely with the Holy Father, & send his replies; 6° this step will be a rebuke to that accursed and sacrilegious government which hypocritically pretends to be free & is the greatest tyrant & robber of all the earth, hardly excepting Russia; finally, 7° this place would contribute much better than Rome to the health of the Bishops, who could thus continue in comfort the great work already cut out & most important.

Spalding ended his letter with a request that Cullen study the project, which he said was warmly endorsed by Dechamps, and he asked the Irish cardinal to recommend it to the pope if he approved of it. 65

On October 20, the council was formally suspended by an apostolic letter.66 Spalding was by that time in London. Apparently before word of the suspension reached him, he sent Cullen a second letter. He thanked the Archbishop of Dublin for having seconded his Malines scheme and for having written to Rome on its behalf. Manning, he reported, was also in favor of a resumption of the sessions in Malines. As for himself, he would soon sail from Liverpool for Baltimore, but he looked forward to visiting Cullen in Dublin when he returned for the rest of the conciliar meetings. 67 Back in Belgium, Dechamps was becoming more and more enthusiastic about the idea. On October 24, he wrote Spalding that Belgians would welcome the council, and he hoped that the notion of holding it in "a free and neutral country" would appeal to the Holy Father. 68 Five days

65 AAD, Cullen Papers, Spalding to Cullen, Malines, October 16, 1870. 66 Mansi, LIII, 155-8.
67 AAD, Cullen Papers, Spalding to Cullen, London, October 21, 1870.
68 AAB, 35-A-7, Dechamps to Spalding, Malines, October 24, 1870.

days later, he wrote Manning in much the same sense, and told him also that there had been serious question of the pope taking up residence at the archiepiscopal palace of Malines, a prospect which he welcomed joyfully. 69

The first dissonant note in this correspondence was sounded by Bishop Conrad Martin of Paderborn, who had been approached by Dechamps in the name of Cullen, Manning, and Spalding. The German prelate agreed that Malines would be the best spot at which to reconvene the council, but he wondered if it would be practicable to do so in the spring of 1871 in view of the unsettled state of so many European countries. 70 Manning was still optimistic about the possibilities when he wrote to Dechamps on November 11. He told the Belgian archbishop that Spalding had written on the subject to Rome, and that he had himself added a "strong and decisive postscript" to the American's letter. He was particularly anxious that the Holy See adopt the expedient of reassembling the council as a token of its freedom of action and courage, and he thought that Malines was the ideal place for such a manifestation. 71 However, despite the enthusiasm of the four archbishops, the Roman authorities finally decided against their plan. A letter from Dechamps to Spalding in January, 1871, told the story, although it concluded with a slight glimmer of hope. The Archbishop of Malines wrote: "It appears that our Holy Father the pope is not for continuation of the council anywhere but in Rome. At least I hear nothing more said about it. Are you still of the same opinion as Monsignor Manning on the subject?" 72 Whatever reply Spalding made, Dechamps' information was correct, and no more was heard of the Malines plan.

While this activity was going on in Europe, American news-

69 AAM, Dechamps Papers, Dechamps to Spalding, Malines, October 10, 1870 (copy).
70 Ibid., Martin to Dechamps, Paderborn, November 7, 1870.
71 Ibid., Manning to Dechamps, London, November 7, 1870.
72 UND, Spaldings Papers, Dechamps to Spalding, Malines, January 10, 1871.

papers were commenting on the definition. We have already mentioned the attitude of James A. McMaster. Other press reaction was not nearly as violent as that of the Freeman's Journal. Nine days before the actual promulgation of the dogma, the PittsburghCatholic was ready to accept an affirmative decision by the council as a foregone conclusion, but it refused to see the definition as a victory for extremist sheets like the Journal, the LondonVatican and Tablet, and the French L'Univers and Le Monde. Taking its lead editorial from the London Weekly Register, the Pennsylvania newspaper criticized those who denounced the opposition bishops as Gallicans, Jansenists, and enemies of the Church of Christ. "No church founded by men," the editorial continued, "could survive the writings of M. Veuillot and of the London Vatican; and if, in spite of their advocacy, the dogma of Infallibility is pronounced to be de fide, then, indeed, may all men believe that it is protected from on high." 73 The Western Watchman of St. Louis greeted the news from Rome in a moderate way. Father David Phelan, the editor, professed his own belief in the dogma, but declared himself sufficiently liberal to appreciate the position of those who might think that the new dogma would lead only to confusion. 74 From the former episcopal see of Augustin Vérot came a calm and sober analysis. The Savannah Morning News for August 2 summed up its reaction in the following words:

The doctrine itself, if we understand it properly, compared with what former Popes would have desired, does not carry the great powers the world thinks it does. It evidently bears the impress of the nineteenth century as distinguished from the ideas of the fourteenth. It gives to the Pontiff, it is true, spiritual supremacy, and in a more extended sense, in as far as decisions from the throne of St. Peter's can be given at any time on any religious question, without conclave of Cardinals or future councils; in matters temporal regarding the government of the Papal Dominion, no such supremacy is thought of. 75

73 The Catholic, July 9, 1870.
74 The Western Watchman, July 16 and August 2, 1870.
75 Savannah Morning News, August 2, 1870.

The Savannah paper also noted that the outbreak of the FrancoPrussian War had relegated the council to a minor place in the news. The return of certain of the opposition bishops to the United States was destined to put it on the front pages again for a brief period, but in general the council had already become history for the American press. Even the Catholic journals would soon be preoccupied with the Italian occupation of Rome, and so, because of the march of events, the definition of infallibility was greeted in the United States by nothing like the furor which had been feared by some of the bishops during the council.

Return of the Bishops

ARCHBISHOP Spalding was one of the first Americans to address a pastoral letter on the council to the people of his diocese. It was dated from Rome on July 19. The archbishop explained the workings of the council and emphasized that there had been both complete freedom of debate and a thorough consideration of the decrees which were promulgated. He concluded his letter with an exposition and defense of the doctrine of papal infallibility, in which he took particular pains to show how it could be reconciled with true liberty, if not with the doctrinaire liberalism of nineteenth-century Europe. 1

By the time Spalding returned to the United States in November, 1870, the center of Catholic interest had shifted from the work of the council to the usurpation of Rome by the Italians. The tumultuous receptions accorded the archbishop in both Baltimore and Washington were turned into protest meetings against the Italian action. Several weeks later, Spalding delivered a ringing defense of the papal temporal power at a rally in Philadelphia. 2 He then returned to the round of his episcopal duties, but his health failed rapidly, and he died peacefully at his residence in Baltimore on February 7, 1872. 3

Other American bishops of what we may style the "moderate"

1 Freeman's Journal, September 3 and 10, 1870. A paraphrase of the pastoral, sprinkled with quotations, is in J. L. Spalding, pp. 416-25.
2 J. L Spalding, pp. 430-39.
3 Ibid., pp. 449-60.

party had arrived home while the definition of infallibility still occupied a commanding position in public interest. Bishop Quinlan of Mobile, who had been an ally of Spalding, reached his see city in mid-May, and immediately issued a statement cautioning against inaccurate news reports emanating from Rome. 4 Two weeks later, he defended the right of the opposition bishops to make their views known in another statement, which read, in part:

In matters open to discussion, there are perhaps mild remonstrances and humble petitions--but no defiant protest or threat of schism among those whom rumor puts upon the imaginary list of prelates. I know them well; none can surpass them in firm faith, loving obedience to authority, chivalrous defense of truth, and live long laborious missionary work in the vineyard of the Lord. No bishop in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church can surpass them.

Let them discuss and humbly demonstrate; they are free to do so. 'In dubiis libertas.' When the discussion is closed, and the voice of authority definitively speaks, then find, if you can, a single voice of the American Episcopate signed in opposition, or the faintest breathing of a voice among them to disturb the harmony of Catholic truth. 5

Bishop Lynch of Charleston was of much the same mind as the Bishop of Mobile. He preached on the council in his cathedral chapel on Pentecost Sunday, June 5. After explaining exactly what papal infallibility meant, he defended the right of some of the fathers to oppose its definition on the ground of inexpediency and predicted that all would accept the decision of the council as final. For himself, the bishop had always believed that the infallibility of the pope was a logical consequence of of the infallibility of the Church. The definition, he told the congregation, would answer the following question: "Does the guidance and control promised by the Divine Saviour guard

4 Banner of the South, May 28, 1870, quoting the Mobile Register of May 17.
5 Oscar Hugh Lipscomb, "The Administration of John Quinlan, Second Bishop of Mobile, 1859-1883" (M.A. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1959), p. 144, quoting the Mobile Register, May 29, 1870.

the Pontiff from error when in virtue of his office he decides and authoritatively announces what has been and is within the Church the true doctrine of Christ on a matter of faith and morals? 6 One last example of the approach taken by "moderate" bishops is to be found in the sermon which the Vicar Apostolic of North Carolina James Gibbons delivered in the cathedral of Baltimore on October 2. Quinlan and Lynch had spoken before the actual definition; Gibbons, of course, spoke several months after it had been made. He delivered the usual warning about inaccurate newspaper accounts, and then tried to explain the working of the council on the analogy of the United States Supreme Court, which examined both statute and common law before reaching a determination. As for the opposition, Gibbons stressed the fact that the minority bishops had been active in challenging the doctrine before it had been defined, but he declared that their opposition had ceased once the council had spoken. 7

The small group of American prelates who had from the first espoused the cause of the definition naturally had reason to be gratified by the success of their efforts. Their sentiments were well expressed in a pastoral letter of Archbishop Francis N. Blanchet, "given out of the Flaminian Gates of Rome, July 31, 1870." 8 The first five pages of Blanchet's letter were devoted to the constitution on faith, and he pointed out that it had condemned the errors of rationalism, of semi-rationalism, and of the "pretended reformation" of the sixteenth century. The remaining eight pages of the pastoral discussed the question of infallibility. The Archbishop of Oregon City was unsparing in his criticism of the opposition. He began by setting the record straight:

6 Banner of the South, July 9, 1870.
7 Catholic Mirror, October 8, 1870.
8 Francis N. Blanchet, Pastoral Letter and Conciliary Discourse of the Most Rev. F. N. Blanchet, D.D., Archbishop of Oregon City; Also Address to Pope Pius IX of the Clergy and Laity of the Ecclessiastical Province of Oregon ( Portland, Oregon: 1871).

Let it be well understood that the Pontifical infallibility is not a novelty or a new doctrine, as some pretend to assert, for it has always been practiced in the Church, though not dogmatically defined. It has always been admitted by all theological schools and the most illustrious doctors, and recognized by the ancient assemblies of the Church before the violent intrusion of Gallicanism, accomplished by the order of Louis XIV. The Church might have continued practicing the Papal infallibility and believing it, as she has done in all past centuries, without defining it, as she has successively defined many other points of doctrine contained in the depository of revelation, had not the sect of Gallicanism boldly come forward and challenged the Church by its opposition and denial of a doctrine she had held from the beginning. It therefore became her imperious duty to defend, prove and define the contested point; and so much so because what was considered by many prelates in the beginning as inopportune, was made by the fierce Gallican opposition, not only opportune, but of the greatest necessity. . . .

The archbishop went on to say that it had been painful to find among the opposition within the council "the names of some of our most respected and loved Fathers and also the names of some illustrious and learned champions of the Church, who, by their writings, had so well deserved of her." However, his main fire was reserved for the "so-called 'liberal Catholic party'" outside the council, and for the "impious and infidel press, pouring daily the filth of their furious rage on the Holy Father and the defenders of his rights." He remarked that these journals had praised the minority bishops, and he associated himself with the sentiments of Bishop Lorenzo Gastaldi of Saluzzo, who had declared, "If I had the misfortune to find my name mentioned by such wicked journals, I would think it was effaced from the Book of Life."

After this introduction, Blanchet gave a short history of the doctrine of infallibility. It had been practically acknowledged, he said, for the first fifteen centuries of the Church's history, and had been called into question only at the time of the great western schism. Gallicanism was all but dead and buried, continued the archbishop, until the appearance of Bishop HenriMaret

Maret's book, Du Concile général et de la Paix religieuse. Maret had attempted, he charged, to change the constitution of the Church by making its government representative and by claiming for the episcopate a share in papal sovereignty. The consequence of this "anarchical" doctrine had been revolutionary pandemonium and the rousing of public opinion, to which Döllinger had contributed his share. It was, concluded Blanchet, "the formula of so-called liberal Catholicism, which is but a masked transition to Protestantism, or to national churches, under the supremacy of the State." Unfortunately, however, he had found that Maret's teaching was "praised, propagated and supported, not only by the impious and revolutionary, but also by the middle or semi-Catholic press, pretending to conciliate the Catholic affirmation with the humiliation and denial of the Papacy, which they would call the 89 of the Church." This was the situation as the Archbishop of Oregon City saw it at the opening of the Council. He next turned his attention to Bishop Dupanloup, whom he seems to have considered the moving spirit of the opposition.

The Canadian-born prelate's estimate of his French confrere was not a very flattering one. He protested that the Bishop of Orléans had addressed himself "to the popular passions, to the sensibility and anxious suspicions of statesmen," and had "provoked the brutal violence of the masses and the skillful tyranny of the secular arm against the Holy See and the august assembly of the Council." Dupanloup himself he saw as a genuine opponent of the dogma masquerading under the pretense of inopportunism and using specious and fallacious arguments. The French bishop was, he felt, responsible for a spirit of division among the fathers and among the clergy, which had caused great scandal to the faithful, and which left no alternative except a clear definition of the papal prerogative. Blanchet then told of the January petition of the infallibilists and the counterpetition of the minority, and he complained of the "deluge of anonymous pamphlets, full of sophism, threats and slanders," which subsequently "inundated the Fathers." He was of the opinion that those who continued in opposition revealed themselves as genuine Gallicans, and he declared that the historical arguments which they alleged against the dogma were groundless and had been completely refuted.

The final section of Blanchet's pastoral was couched in a more positive vein. The archbishop enumerated the scriptural proofs of the doctrine, and then analyzed the decree of the Council of Florence on papal primacy, which he said demanded recognition of the pope's infallibility. He added arguments from the history of the early Church and finished by citing the letter sent to Pius IX by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866. As for the Vatican Council itself, Blanchet asserted that the majority of the most talented fathers supported the definition, and he closed the letter by saying that the Pastor Aeternus had given the Church that which it most needed, a reaffirmation of authority.

The pastoral letter just described is valuable as a clear elucidation of the mind of one segment of the American hierarchy, and the sermons and press releases of the "moderate" bishops are interesting as an indication of the way in which they explained the council and its work to their flocks, but the major focus of interest among the returning prelates was bound to be upon Purcell and Kenrick, Vérot, Domenec, McQuaid, and the others who had been most closely identified with the activities of the minority. Some of the American opponents of the definition, like Whelan, seem to have slipped quietly back into their accustomed duties without much fanfare, but most of the rest felt called upon to explain the stand which they had taken. The first to do so was John B. Purcell.

The Archbishop of Cincinnati arrived in New York City on August 10, 1870, and on that same evening gave an interview to a reporter from the Herald. The journalist's account of that interview reads as follows:

The Archbishop declared himself an anti-infallibilist, and spoke of Archbishop Manning as a fanatic--in fact as one whom the Anglican party were glad to get rid of on account of the disturbing influence he exercised in their councils.

Archbishop Purcell is a somewhat elderly gentleman, of quiet and courteous manners, and carrying with him much of a reputation for controversial ability. He was satisfied in the belief that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was radically of such an arbitrary character that the final promulgation of the dogma would be almost indefinitely postponed. He spoke of the Archbishop of Paris having declared his disposition to acquiesce in whatever the majority of the Ecumenical Council decided upon, but there was evident in what Archbishop Purcell gave utterance to, that the party of the anti-infallibilists is not of that complexion to be easily disposed of by a vote which places them in a minority. Archbishop Purcell expressed himself to the effect that the Roman Catholic mind in America is not prepared to accept the doctrine of infallibility as applied to the personality of the Pope. That the Church, through the voice of its assembled representative ministers, should lay down certain laws for the government of the entire body, and promulgate final doctrines for its acceptance, receives the endorsement of all Catholics; but the question of personal infallibility is more than it is thought either reasonable or proper to receive. It will take, however, a long time before the dogma of infallibility is officially proclaimed to the world. It will have to be signed by all the Bishops who participated in the Council; and that process, judging by the slow moving machinery of the Papal system, will take years to accomplish.

Archbishop Purcell has no idea what will happen to Rome after the withdrawal of the French troops, but he relies on the devotion of the troops who are enrolled under the Papal standard to repel any Garibaldian or Mazzinian raid on the Holy City. 9

While newspapers across the country were digesting this rather remarkable statement, Purcell was on his way to Cincinnati. On August 16, Bishop Lynch of Charleston wrote him a long letter which picks up the story and also tells something of the consternation which the Herald interview had caused. The southern bishop wrote from Brooklyn, New York:

This afternoon's paper has a long telegraphic statement of a reporter having 'interviewed' you in Cincinnati, and anounces that you are to

9 New York Herald, August 11, 1870.

address the public at Mozart Hall next Sunday evening when you will defend your course, &c. &c.

Before that, the telegram says, 'He coincided with the Abp of Paris that the decree (on Infallibility) could not be considered binding until the council shall have been closed and the Pope proclaimed (infallible?) under the signatures of the Bishops.' Something to the same effect seemed to be hinted at or implied in the account of his interview with you, which the Herald Reporter gave in N. York.

I do hope this letter will reach your Grace before Sunday. I implore you, the senior bishop of the United States so loved and revered by us all, not to allow yourself to be drawn into any such statement, contrary to sound principles of theology, to the fundamental principles of canon law, and to the facts of the history of the church in councils. Do not, I implore you, allow yourself to be placed in a false position, which is untenable. The Archbishop of Paris has not committed himself to it. Several French Bishops ( Dupanloup and others) if the telegraph spoke truly have given in their adhesion to the Decree while you were on the Atlantic. Any how, that is what they will all come to.

Lynch urged the archbishop to consider his position carefully. He was himself satisfied that the adhesion of each and every bishop was not necessary to the validity of a dogmatic decree, and he asked Purcell to admit that the question was at least a doubtful one. He then appealed to the Cincinnati prelate's pastoral sense and reminded him that he would one day have to demand of his people acquiescence in papal infallibility. "Let us at least show," he pleaded, "the example of obedient Faith, conquering our own opinions and if need be personal judgments, in subjection to the yoke of Faith." The Bishop of Charleston did his best to impress upon Purcell the extreme caution that had to be used in dealing with the press. Criticism could no longer be kept "within the family," as he pointed out:

We are in times when we must measure every word. It will be caught up and commented on, by good Catholics, by semi-infidels and infidels, and by Protestants. Already the report made in the N.Y. Herald has elicited editorials in papers, showing what rich fun it would be to them to be able to ask, why does not the Catholic Church take action in regard to Bishops who reject the decisions of her councils? They will pat a Bishop on the back, and cry out, Liberality, Independence of thought, Freedom of speech, until they think he is committed, and with equal trumpetting call for ecclesiastical censures on him or else jeer the church as imbecile.

Bishop Lynch finished his letter with the plea for preservation of the unity of faith and union with the See of Peter which had always been characteristic of the American Church. He was quite conscious of the problems which had been created by the definition, and he suggested that it would be a good idea for the bishops of the United States to agree on a common policy as to the explanation to be given of it. "Perhaps," he suggested, it would be better "to let those who advocated its introduction, set forth the true meaning of it." The last line of the letter provided a sidelight on the gathering of signatures for the January anti-definition petition, and also indicated Lynch's own views on what had happened in Rome. Earlier in the letter he had said: "I was sorry the subject was brought up in the council." He closed with a final reference to the opportuneness of having done so: "At your request I signed the request to the Holy Father not to allow the subject to be introduced. In the same spirit I now write to your Grace--this time I hope with better success." 10

Another bishop who was worried about what Purcell might do was Sylvester Rosecrans of Columbus, one of the few Americans who had not attended the Roman meeting. He proceeded by indirection, but in the light of published reports of the archbishop's views his meaning was clear. Rosecrans wrote to Purcell on August 16:

Last Sunday I had the chapters on the Church, solemnly proclaimed by the Holy Father, read in the Church, and along with them some remarks of my own welcoming the end of the long discussion, by a proclamation of the Ancient Faith. The Council was legitimately convened, legitimately conducted, and duly approved. All Christendom prayed for the Holy Ghost to guide its decisions: and hence all the promises of Christ to the Church must have their fulfillment in it.

10 UND, Purcell Papers, Lynch to Purcell, Brooklyn, August 16, 1870.

After this implied invitation to his metropolitan to accept the definition, Rosecrans added that he had been sorry to read Archbishop Kenrick Concio. He was particularly disturbed by the passage in that pamphlet which contended that the Church could not declare the pope infallible. This, the Bishop of Columbus thought, was "going too far." "However," he concluded on a hopeful note, "I suppose litigation will stop now." 11

Unfortunately for the sanguine hopes of Lynch and Rosecrans, the aspect of the 'litigation' which concerned Purcell did not end with the New York and Cincinnati newspaper interviews. On Sunday evening, August 21, the archbishop delivered a lecture on the council in his see city's Mozart Hall. Popular exposition of theological niceties is at best a difficult task, and the locale of the talk did not improve the situation. One of the reporters present noted that the room in which it was held was plagued by poor acoustics, and that "its currents of air and peculiar atmosphere operated badly on foreigners." 12 Whatever the full explanation, press reports of the lecture only proved how valid had been Bishop Lynch's forebodings, and in the sequel Archbishop Purcell found himself compelled to issue still one more clarification of his position.

The speaker discussed his views on union of Church and State in a section of the speech which has already been quoted in an earlier chapter. He then went on to the question of papal infallibility. It had first been considered by the Americans, he said, at a meeting held in the American College. As a result of that session, Purcell had been commissioned to draw up the petition which was submitted on January 15, in which the pope was asked not to permit the subject of his infallibility to come before the council. Although they realized that upwards of 530 fathers wanted the definition, the American petitioners felt that they had "discovered inconsistencies in the defense of the dogma" which they thought should be made known to the Holy

11 Ibid., Rosecrans to Purcell, Columbus, August 16, 1870.
12 Banner of the South, September 3, 1870.

Father. This, according to Purcell, was the primary motive of their petition.

After he had explained the general position of the American opposition, the archbishop turned to his personal difficulties. He reminded his hearers that Bellarmine had listed some forty popes who taught erroneous doctrines, and he complained that some partisans of the definition--among whom he singled out the Patriarch of Jerusalem Guiseppe Valerga--had not distinguished sufficiently between a personal infallibility of the Pope and that which he had as Vicar of Christ. He felt that the council had clarified this point by its insistence that the pontiff was infallible only when he spoke ex cathedra. Purcell likewise told the audience that he had been concerned about past papal pronouncements, and had wanted to know how they fitted in with infallibility. As examples of what he meant, he instanced the bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII and the power of the pope to depose rulers of nations. However, he declared, all his difficulties had been solved by the council, which had distinguished what popes declared ex cathedra from what they might hold as private teachers, and he was therefore prepared to confess his faith in the dogma which had been defined.

There was, however, the further problem of the newspaper interviews. The archbishop was not in a friendly frame of mind toward any journalists. He expressed his anger at the abusive accusations which had been heaped on him by an eastern newspaper which charged that he was obstinately opposed to anything emanating from Rome, especially if it were connected with infallibility. The reference would seem to have been to the Freeman's Journal. He also charged that the interviewers in New York and Cincinnati had dishonestly and maliciously misrepresented his words and denied that he had said that promulgation of the dogma must await the signature of all the fathers. Instead, he claimed that he had said the exact opposite, that is, that the public ought not to wait for universal episcopal approval before subscribing to the doctrine of the pope's infallibility.

At this point, Purcell introduced an argument which was to be the source of some confusion. Some years previously he had engaged in a series of debates with the Baptist minister Alexander Campbell. In the course of those debates the archbishop had, as he candidly admitted to the audience in Mozart Hall, made the statement that papal infallibility was not an article of faith. According to the newspaper accounts, he put it this way: "It was not a doctrine of the Church for eighteen hundred years. It never was received as a dogma of the Church till the other day." As those two sentences stand, the first is theologically false, if it implies that the pope's infallibility was an addition to the deposit of Faith. The second sentence is true in the sense that papal infallibility had not been an explicitly defined dogma until July 18, 1870. The archbishop did not help matters by referring his hearers to the text of the Campbell debates and announcing that he stood by what he had said there. In common with most other contemporary American theologians and bishops, Purcell had held before the council that the pope was infallible when speaking--as he put it--"in connection with the Church congregated in Council or dispersed all over the world." This was orthodox doctrine, but it did not hit precisely upon what had, in the final analysis, come to be the crux of the question in the closing days of the Vatican Council, namely, did the pope require some sort of consent of the Church-either prior, concomitant, or subsequent--before he could make an infallible pronouncement? The phrase "personal infallibility of the pope" could have two meanings. It could refer to an infallibility which adhered to declarations made by the pontiff as a private person. This the council did not define, but it did define, in explicit terms, that no consent of the Church was required for infallible papal pronouncements made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Neither in his speech at the council itself nor in the Mozart Hall address did Archbishop Purcell demonstrate a clear grasp of these distinctions and therefore, despite the profession of faith which he made during the Mozart Hall lecture, his position remained objectively ambiguous.

Whatever may have been the confusion engendered by Purcell's explanations, he was determined to leave no doubt as to his subjective acceptance of the dogma defined in Pastor Aeternus. He read to the assembly the text of the fourth chapter of the constitution and prefaced it by a statement of personal commitment, which was reported as follows:

I come here to proclaim the personal infallibility of the Pope in his own words. I am a true Roman Catholic, as I said in Rome . . . . I have vindicated the rights of the Pope, and the infallibility of the Church in the strongest language I was capable of using in Rome, and I am not now going back on this . . . . I want the editors of newspapers and reporters to send it on the wings of the press, North, South, East and West, that John B. Purcell is one of the most faithful Catholics that ever swore allegiance to the Church. Let them say what they please of me and my course in Rome; for that I have received the thanks of those who do not think exactly as I do. It is by free discussion that truth is elicited, and without such discussion it can not be. 13

The Mozart Hall speech naturally provoked considerable commotion. Secular papers which had previously lionized the archbishop now accused him of insincerity. The Cincinnati Daily Gazette, for example, said that his explanations smacked more of a politician consenting to a platform which he did not fully support than they did to "the saving faith which is necessary to salvation." 14 In New York, McMaster was disturbed by the two press interviews and by first reports of the address. He quoted the Cincinnati Commoner as having termed Purcell a "giant among the pigmies," but warned the prelate lest he incur the fate of "those wretched Archbishops Nestorias {sic}

13 Catholic Telegraph, August 25, 1870; Banner of the South, September 3, 1870.
14 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, August 23, 1870, in Beiser, p. 244.

and Sergius." 15 The St. Louis Western Watchman was initially cautious. Phelan noted that he had received by telegram the purported text of the lecture and commented: "If correctly reported His Grace has said some most extraordinary things." 16 One commentator who found the text acceptable was Bishop Rosecrans, who congratulated the archbishop on his effort and told him that he had had the speech read aloud to his priests. 17

The local controversy stirred up by the Mozart Hall lecture did not last very long, but it was for a time a cause célèbre along the banks of the Ohio. One of the last echoes came on September 6, 1870, when the Cincinnati Inquirer published a letter from the archbishop in which he protested that in an editorial on August 22 the paper had stated that, although he professed himself a Catholic, he did not believe in the pope's infallibility. Purcell demanded correction of "this false statement," and declared: "Thousands who heard me in Mozart Hall last Sunday, as well as the reports on my remarks in other newspapers, can testify to the injustice which you have thus, no doubt unintentionally, but still most inexcusably done me." 18

It is difficult, in the absence of a completely reliable transcript of the archbishop's speech, to judge the case completely, but it would seem that a combination of bad acoustics, a certain confusion in Purcell's own thought, and more confusion on the part of reporters untrained in theological terminology conspired to turn the Mozart Hall lecture into something less than the complete vindication of his course of action which the speaker had intended. This was, at any rate, the impression gained by Archbishop Spalding, who heard of the evening's events while he was still in Belgium. He wrote to Cardinal Cullen: "Archbp. Purcell, after a deal of nonsense poured forth in a lecture, has given his adhesion to the definition." 19 Of the last affirmation

15 Freeman's Journal, August 27, 1870.
16 Western Watchman, August 27, 1870.
17 UND, Purcell Papers, Rosecrans to Purcell, Columbus, August 25, 1870.
18 Cincinnati Inquirer of "last Tuesday," quoted in the Western Watchman, September 10, 1870.
19 AAD, Cullen Papers, Spalding to Cullen, Malines, October 16, 1870.

there was no doubt, as the Archbishop of Cincinnati made abundantly clear. His reasoning may have been confused; his faith was not.

Even after the excitement in Cincinnati had died down, Archbishop Purcell had some explaining to do. He sent in a formal adhesion to the decrees of the fourth session of the council which was acknowledged by Cardinal Barnabò on November 11. The cardinal expressed himself as grateful for the letter, especially in light of the opinions which the archbishop had held while in Rome and in view of the newspaper stories which had been reported to him. Although he had shown Purcell's letter to Pius IX, he suggested that a personal submission by the archbishop to the Holy Father would be in order. 20 Purcell complied, in a second letter, sent on December 5 and addressed to the pope. Pius IX responded with a letter of thanks that the false newspaper reports had finally been corrected. 21

The Archbishop of Cincinnati also maintained a correspondence, for a time at least, with two of the chief European minority bishops. On August 1, 1870, Archbishop Haynald of Kalocsa informed him that the decrees of the fourth session had not yet been published in Hungary, and that nothing would be done about them until the hierarchy of the country had had a chance to meet the following October. He also asked Purcell to explain to him the details of the temporal administration of the Church in the United States, which he said had been recommended as a model by Hungarian émigrés. 22 Purcell sent the required information, and when Haynald wrote to thank him for it in December, he added that the Hungarian hierarchy has as yet done nothing to implement the decrees of the council. 23 Purcell's second correspondent was Félix Dupanloup. On January 7, 1871, the Bishop of Orléans reported that he had heard twice from Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, who told him that Rome

20 UND, Purcell Papers, Barnabò to Purcell, Rome, November 11, 1870.
21 Ibid., Pius IX to Purcell, Rome, January 11, 1871.
22 AAC, Purcell Papers, Haynald to Purcell, Kalocsa, August 1, 1870.
23 UND, Purcell Papers, Haynald to Purcell, Kalocsa, December 28, 1870.

had not as yet made any demands on him, or on any of the German bishops, relative to the decrees of the council. Dupanloup wanted to know what the situation was in the United States. He told Purcell that he knew of only two French bishops who had been approached. In each case they had been warned by a lay emissary that if they did not give their explicit adhesion to Pastor Aeternus they would experience some difficulty in the processing of matrimonial dispensations. The French bishop asked Purcell to send him a report on the American scene. 24 There is no way of knowing if the correspondence continued, and no further reference to the council or to infallibility was found among the Purcell papers, so that his role in the assembly and its problems may be said to have closed with Pius IX's letter to him in January, 1871.

Just before the debates on infallibility began, the New York Herald singled out Augustin Vérot as one of the strongest opponents with whom the majority had to contend. The paper's Rome correspondent sent home the following dispatch:

Rome has never felt such a rebuke as the American Bishops have administered, nor have the ears of the prelates heard such language as fell from the lips of Bishop Vérot of Savannah, and Archbishops Kenrick and Connolly. They uttered sentences that are new to the regions of Rome: it will be wisdom if they are profited by. 'These Americans do not care much about our pomp and splendour,' grimly remarked a 'ring bishop' (one without a diocese) the other day. 'Faith, they do not, nor for your climate and noisome smells either,' responded a bishop in partibus. 25

That Vérot was among the most redoubtable minority fathers in the council has already been amply demonstrated. He was also one of the first opposition bishops to make his formal submission to the will of the majority. On July 25, 1870 he wrote to Bishop Fessler, the secretary of the council: "By this present letter I declare my adherence to the constitution promulgated in the fourth session." 26 Bishop Vérot arrived in Savannah on Oc-

24 Ibid., Dupanloup to Purcell, Orléans, January 7, 1871.
25 New York Herald, May 11, 1870, in Beiser, p. 95.
26 Vérot to Fessler, Rome, July 25, 1870, in Mansi, LIII, 1010.

tober 7, enroute to his new Diocese of St. Augustine. 27 Two weeks later he spoke for the first time to the people of his new see. He promised them a series of lectures on the council, but he also wished at that first confrontation to explain his activities in Rome. He felt, he said, that such an explanation was due in justice, not only to himself, but to the faithful of the two dioceses which he had represented at the assembly.

The bishop's first point was similar to the remarks which we have seen were made by Quinlan and Gibbons. He declared that his opinions had been distorted in the press and that he had been made to seem a heretic. The approach taken by the press was, he acknowledged, particularly attributable to the secrecy which had been enforced concerning the council's proceedings, but the calumnies which he had suffered were nonetheless painful. Vérot went on to single out some of the more atrocious falsehoods which had been fastened to his name. He had been pictured as an ultraliberal who denied original sin, and who was hostile to the Church and to the Holy See, when in fact he had done nothing but use his episcopal prerogative to express his own sincere convictions. Infallibility, he continued, was a many-sided question. The pope was not infallible as a private teacher, or when he gave his opinion in matters of history, geography, or grammar. All this had been thrashed out at the council, and Vérot's difficulties had been explained to his satisfaction, so that he now accepted the definition which had been made. 28

Bishop Vérot subsequently delivered four more lectures on the council, but efforts to find copies of them have been unsuccessful. Some indication of their content and tone can, however, be deduced from the fact that the new Bishop of Savannah, Ignatius Persico, O.F.M.Cap., an infallibilist during the council, congratulated him on the great good that they had accomplished. 29

A final picture of the much maligned and certainly contro-

27 Savannah Republican, October 7, 1870.
28 Catholic Mirror, November 26, 1870. Vérot spoke in St. Augustine on October 23.
29 ADSA, Vérot Papers, Persico to Vérot, Savannah, February 23, 1871.

versial French-born southern bishop comes from the pen of Bishop James Wood of Philadelphia, who visited Florida in 1875. He told the then Archbishop of Baltimore, James Roosevelt Bayley, that he had found their colleague of St. Augustine in fine spirits and working hard. His irrepressible sense of humor had not failed him, and he still loved to tell a joke. Apropos of the events of 1870, Wood informed the archbishop: "He {Verot} did not discuss the infallibility nor allude to his peculiar 'Acta' at the Vatican Council." 30 And on that note Augustin Vérot passes out of our story.

Bishop McQuaid made at least two public pronouncements on the council after his return to the United States. The first was in the form of a sermon preached in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Rochester, on Sunday, August 28, 1870. The bishop began by stating it as a fact that the pope was infallible when he spoke ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, but he pointed out that the prerogative did not extend to other areas like business and politics. He also expressed his astonishment that those outside the Church should be more upset over this papal infallibility than they were over the infallibility of the Church.

McQuaid next turned to the actual discussions in the council, and his initial effort was to explain the disagreements which had occurred:

Now, you will say, there was a variety of opinions and much disputing among the Bishops with regard to this matter. Well, there was; and what was the point of the dispute, and upon what did they differ? It was whether, in making these definitions, the Holy Father should consult the Bishops, just as in the council he had consulted them.

Having thus established the point at issue, the bishop told his congregation that, while the text of the definition itself spoke of consultation of the bishops in the past, and while he thought that this would doubtless continue to be the procedure for the future, still it was not necessary. That was what had been decided by the fathers. A minority had held the contrary opinion, but their position was explicitly and clearly excluded, and it was

30 AAB, 42-U-51, Wood to Bayley, Jacksonville, April 1, 1875.

now "by no means necessary on the part of the Sovereign Pontiff to consult the Bishops before rendering an infallible definition on faith and morals."

Bishop McQuaid's attempt to explain the need for the definition was somewhat less successful than his lucid exposition of what infallibility meant, but he declared that it had been necessary because the pope had always to be on guard to deal with assaults on the faith. He finished his sermon with a frank confession of his own opposition during the council and gave the reason for it when he said: "I have now no difficulty in accepting the dogma, although to the last I opposed it; because somehow or other it was in my head that the Bishops ought to be consulted." Finally he appealed to the faith of his hearers, and asserted that for the believing Catholic there should be no difficulty in accepting the decision of the Church in the matter. 31 Two months later, the Bishop of Rochesterrepeated the closing remarks of the August sermon in a speech which he delivered at the laying of the cornerstone of St. Mary's Church in Auburn, New York. On that occasion he phrased it in the following words:

A year ago had I spoken to you, standing here, I would have given you my views, my opinion about infallibility. I would have told you that I thought the Pope and the Bishops were infallible. Today, I tell you, on the authority of the Church, that the Pope alone is infallible. 32

The always forthright Bernard McQuaid had spoken his mind in Rome; he was equally forthright in his adherence to what the council defined.

Before coming to the more complicated story of Peter Richard Kenrick, mention may be made of two of the other principal American opponents of the definition. Bishop Ignatius Mrak must have sent his submission to Rome late in 1870 or early

31 Frederick J. Zwierlein, The Life and Letters of Bishop McQuaid (Rochester: 1962), II, 60-63.
32 Ibid., II, 63-4.

in 1871. On February 4, 1871, Cardinal Barnabò acknowledged its receipt. 33 It was not until eleven months later that Bishop Domenec of Pittsburgh forwarded his formal acceptance of Pastor Aeternus. He wrote to Barnabò on December 31, 1871. In his letter Domenec told the cardinal that from the moment of his return to his diocese he had publicly accepted the definition of infallibility and had preached in its defense to both Catholic and non-Catholic audiences. When the clergy of the diocese gathered to celebrate the silver jubilee of Pius IX's pontificate, the bishop had again made a public profession of his belief, and had signed with his own hand a letter to the pope in which explicit acceptance of the decrees of the council was stated. Domenec felt that these actions constituted sufficient proof of his orthodoxy, but he had recently been informed by Archbishop Spalding that the pope required of him a formal document testifying to his belief in infallibility. He therefore sent such an affirmation to Barnabò in the form of a confession of faith which laid special stress on the dogma declared in the fourth chapter of the constitution de ecclesia. 34

Orestes Brownson later reprinted an example of the type of lecture to which Bishop Domenec had referred in his letter to the Prefect of Propaganda. Domenec began by declaring that the primary issue in the council had been the expediency or inexpediency of the definition. He illustrated this by what he said was his own position:

I was one of the prelates who was opposed, most vigorously, to this doctrine being defined. I signed my name to a petition which we addressed to the Holy Father, imploring and begging him not to allow this question to be introduced into the council, and I did all that I could to prevent its definition, but does this prove that I did not believe in the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff previous to its definition in the Vatican Council? Not at all. For many years, as professor in the Theological Seminary of Philadelphia, and elsewhere, I

33 Mansi, LIII, 1053.
34 "Domenec to Barnabò", Pittsburgh, December 31, 1870, in Mansi, LIII, 1017-8.

taught the doctrine of infallibility as defined in the Vatican Council. In 1864, in a Pastoral Letter which I wrote to the faithful of my diocese, I taught and explained that doctrine . . . .

Now, the reason why I was so much opposed to the defining of this doctrine of infallibility was, because I feared that many of our dissenting brethren would make use of this definition to oppose the Catholic Church; that many who were favorably disposed towards the Catholic Church might change their views; that the infidel and unbeliever would rather scorn and ridicule, than to bring them to our faith and religion. I was convinced in my very heart and soul, that the definition would be rather detrimental than beneficial; that the enemies of the Church would give a wrong interpretation to its meaning; that through the pulpit and the press false statements would be conveyed to the minds of many, who thereby would be embittered against the Catholic Church, and the breach which separates Protestantism from Catholicity would become deeper and wider, and the chances of conversion, either among Protestants or infidels, would be far less. These being my convictions, I could not act otherwise than I did. 35

Bishop Domenec's reasoning in the above-quoted paragraphs corresponded closely to the speech which he delivered at the fifty-second general congregation on June 3, in which he spoke of the harm that would result from the definition. However, he did refer to papal infallibility in June, 1870, as a "new dogma," and he candidly confessed at that time that he and many other American bishops had consistently preached that the infallibility of the pope was not an article of faith. This was one of his principal objections to its definition by the council, an objection which, as we have seen, he expressed not only in the council hall, but also, with some vehemence, in private conversation with Father Henri Icard. 36 This evidence casts some doubt on Domenec's later assertion that he had always and consistently upheld the doctrine. There was, however, no doubt about his acceptance of the dogma once it had been defined.

The post-conciliar involvement of Archbishop Kenrick with

35 Henry P. Brownson (ed.), The Works of Orestes A. Brownson ( Detroit, 1905), XIII, 413-20. Orestes Brownson originally used Domenec's lecture in an article which appeared in his Quarterly Review for July, 1873.
36 Mansi, LII, 425-7; ASS, Icard Journal, pp. 255-6.

the issues which had been raised by the council was considerably more varied that that of any of his American colleagues. His prominence in the international committee of the minority and the two pamphlets which he had had published at Naples earned him more than the usual attention from the Roman Curia, an attention that does not seem to have perturbed the archbishop unduly, although it was a source of worry for his Vicar-General, Father Patrick J. Ryan.

The first indication that Kenrick's actions in Rome would not be allowed to pass unnoticed came in a letter from a Sulpician priest, Jean-Baptiste Larne, who told Father Icard from Rome on July 20, 1870, that a commission of archbishops had been appointed to examine the writings of the Archbishop of St. Louis. Larne had been unable to find out anything about the meetings of the commission, but he felt sure that Kenrick would be required to accept the definitions of the council in writing and also to disavow certain propositions contained in his pamphlets. 37

The archbishop was still traveling in Europe when the first Roman communication on the subject reached the United States. It was in the form of a letter, dated October 15, 1870, from Cardinal Filippo de Angelis and was sent, not directly to St. Louis, but to one of the suffragan bishops of the province, who was instructed to pass it on to his metropolitan. De Angelis informed Kenrick that his Concio had been reviewed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index and that it had been condemned as containing grave errors. However, out of personal consideration, the condemnation had not been published, and the archbishop was invited to prevent such publication by an explicit acceptance of the decrees of the council. 38

For unexplained reasons, Cardinal de Angelis' message was

37 ASS, Icard Papers, Larne to Icard, Rome, July 20, 1870.
38 "Kenrick to Acton", St. Louis, March 29, 1871, in Johann Friedrich von Schulte, Der Altkatholicismus; Geschichte seiner Entwicklung, inneren Gestaltung und rechtlichen Stellung in Deutschland ( Giessen: 1887), p. 267. See also "Kenrick to de Angelis", St. Louis, March 28, 1871, in Mansi, LIII,955.

not given to Kenrick until March 28, 1871. 39 In the meantime, further action had been taken in Rome. A cardinalitial commission had been set up in October, 1870, to look into matters connected with the council. At the third meeting of this commission, which was held on October 26, a resolution was passed to write to Kenrick, "according to the mind of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, to induce him to retract the errors contained in his Concio habenda et [sic] non habita," with the threat that if he did not do so the pertinent decree of condemnation would be published. 40 A copy of this letter, if it was written, has not been found.

While Archbishop Kenrick was making a leisurely journey home, his future was a matter of some speculation in the United States. Father Ryan, the St. Louis vicar-general, wrote to Purcell on September 14:

I expect our Archbishop home late in October. I think he will find no difficulty in getting permission to absent himself from the remaining sessions of the Council! How I wish to speak with Yr. Grace on the history of these months in Rome. I hope however all will now be as calm as before. 41

Three weeks later, Ryan was no better informed as to his ordinary's plans, although he had heard from him. He told Purcell:

I had a note from our Archbishop lately. He says little of the dogma, but now that the Church has recd. it, I cannot see that even any defects in the organization of the Council &c. could justify refusal to accept it. 42

The Vicar-general of St. Louis was not the only one who was following with interest the fortunes of Archbishop Kenrick. Bishop William McCloskey of Louisville sent two inquiries on the subject to Rome within a space of nine days in the fall of 1870. On September 23, he wrote his Benedictine friend, Ber-

39 Mansi, LIII, 955.
40 Betti, p. 205, quoting from the diary of Cardinal Luigi Bilio.
41 AAC, Purcell Papers, Ryan to Purcell, St. Louis, September 14, 1870.
42 Ibid., Ryan to Purcell, St. Louis, October 5, 1870.

nard Smith: "Is there any likelihood of action being taken in the case of St. Louis--we have disagreeable turnouts, but I give them no credit." 43 A week later, the Bishop of Louisville penned another note to Smith, in which he reported: "No news as yet of Dr. Kenrick. Do not fail to let me know if there is any trouble in that quarter." 44 One last interested observer was Archbishop Spalding, who remarked to Cardinal Cullen in midOctober: "I have not yet heard from AB of St. Louis, & I have my apprehensions on the subject, but trust it may all go right & without further scandal." 45

The object of all this concern was in the meantime traveling in Spain. Acton met him in Brussels in the late fall, and sent the following account to Döllinger:

Kenrick had made a trip to Spain, in order not to spend the first difficult times among his flock, and in consequence lost all contact with inquisitive clerics. He showed me an unlooked for confidence. He has remained unchanged, and gave his consent to the reprinting of his writings with the avowal that he took back not a word of them. I have half committed myself to publish the Concio in England. He is firm in his opinion that the council must first be completed before its decrees can oblige. The decrees of Basle were confirmed and published and then afterwards the council was held to be not ecumenical. It is incorrect, as Hecker reported, that Kenrick protested against the exclusion of the procurators at the very beginning. He had then by anticipation already taken the view that the whole affair was a sad comedy. As for the question of what he will do, he has no plans. He will attempt nothing directly against the ecumenicity of the council. He will most probably keep silent, but will retract nothing, will not teach the dogma and will not believe it. He is prepared to be deposed, but says that this does not save him, since even as a layman he could not submit, and still less as a deposed archbishop.

Kenrick gives the impression of great strength and peace. He was very pleased with my dispatches. Now he has already arrived in America. He wrote me, on passing through London, a very friendly farewell letter. 46


43 AASP, Smith Papers, McCloskey to Smith, Louisville, September 23, 1870.
44 Ibid., McCloskey to Smith, Louisville, October 1, 1870.
45 AAD, Cullen Papers, Spalding to Cullen, Malines, October 16, 1870.
46 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Aldenham, December 23,

It is not easy to distinguish in Acton's letter between Kenrick's feelings and what the English lord would have liked him to think, but the fact that the archbishop deliberately delayed his return to St. Louis argues to the possibility that during the summer and fall of 1870 he underwent something of a crise de conscience on the subject of infallibility. There is no doubt at all that he was deeply disturbed by what had happened at the council and it is by no means beyond belief that when he met Acton in Brussels he did actually give voice to some of the melancholy thoughts which the Englishman reported to Döllinger. No letters from Kenrick for the period have been found, and in their absence all conclusions about his true state of mind must necessarily be conjectural. The first evidence we have of the line which he intended to take was not forthcoming until after he had returned to his diocese, and it came in the form of his response to an address of welcome by Father Ryan.

A formal reception of the archbishop in St. Louis had been organized for Monday, January 2, and it was held in St. John's Church. The vicar-general spoke for the clergy and faithful of the archdiocese, and then Archbishop Kenrick rose to respond. The pertinent passages of his speech read as follows:

With regard to that portion of the address (of Father Ryan) that refers to my course in the Vatican Council, I will state briefly the motives of my action, and the motive of my entire and unreserved submission to the definition emanating from that authority.

Up until the very period of the assembling of that Council, I held as a theological opinion what that Council has declared to be an article of Christian faith; and yet I was opposed, most strongly opposed, to the definition. I knew that the misconceptions of its real character would be an obstacle in the way of the diffusion of Catholic truth. At least I thought so. I feared in certain parts of Europe, especially, that such a definition might lead to the danger of schism in the Church; and on more closely examining the question itself, in its intrinsic evidence, I was not convinced of the conclusiveness of the arguments by which it was sustained, or of its compatibility with certain well ascertained facts of ecclesiastical history which rose up strongly before my mind. The motive of my submission is simply and singly the authority of the Catholic Church. That submission is a most reasonable obedience, because of the necessity of obeying and following an authority established by God; and having the guaranty of our Divine Saviour's perpetual assistance is in itself evidence, and cannot be gainsayed by anyone who professes to recognize Jesus Christ as his Saviour and his God.

Simply and singly on that authority I yield obedience and full and unreserved submission to the definition concerning the character of which there can be no doubt as emanating from the Council, and subsequently accepted by the greater part even of those who were in the minority on that occasion. In yielding this submission, I say to the Church in the words of Peter and Paul: 'To whom, O, Holy Mother, shall we go but to Thee? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we have believed and have known that Thou art the Pillar and the Ground of Truth. 47

Of this statement, the Western Watchman commented:

The shortest, simplest, best vindication of the late dogma the people of America have yet heard was uttered by the Archbishop of St. Louis on the occasion of his late canonical reception. His clear, open avowal of his unhesitating belief in the dogma, and his concise and pertinent statement of his reasons for that belief, have the true catholic ring, and breathe the ancient, undying spirit of the catholic faith. 'I believe because the Church has said it.' Here we have said in a few words, what volumes could not say more clearly, more satisfactorily or more forcibly declare. 48

Archbishop Kenrick had obviously done a great deal of soulsearching during his long sojourn in Europe. His meditations had not solved the historical problem which had perplexed him in the course of the debates, but he had reconciled himself to the dogma on the highest of motives, that of faith. This was something that would not be easily understood by those whose own faith was not of the same caliber as his. He made only the barest mention in the speech of another motive for his submission when he remarked that the definition had been generally accepted by the Church. This was a facet of his thinking which, as will be seen, was to cause further woe. But for the time being

47 John J. O'Shea, The Two Kenricks ( Philadelphia: 1904), pp. 333-4; Western Watchman, January 7, 1871.
48 Western Watchman, January 14, 1871.

all was serene in St. Louis, and would remain so until the anonymous suffragan bishop brought Kenrick de Angelis' letter in late March.

One of the archbishop's first acts after reaching St. Louis was to write to Cardinal Barnabò. His message was brief: "Having returned home at the end of the past year, I indicated in a public meeting that I adhere to what was done in the fourth session of the Vatican Council." 49 Not until two months later did he express himself again on the subject, but in Europe his name was still prominent in the correspondence of Acton and Döllinger. On February 2, the Englishman told his mentor that Bishop Clifford of Clifton did not believe in the doctrine of infallibility and added that this was also his impression of the attitude of Kenrick. He had consulted his notes on their conversation in Brussels, and summarized that discussion once again for Döllinger's benefit. According to Acton, the archbishop had said that he would not resign because nothing would be accomplished by it. For the sake of peace, he had decided to write nothing against the council. He had, Acton reported, never believed that anything good would come of the council and associated himself with a statement attributed to Bishop Hefele, that the whole affair was a compound of lies. On the other hand, Kenrick was represented as having declared that he would not take back a word of what he had written, not even the statement that the council could never define papal infallibility as a dogma. Instead he had been happy to hear that his conciliar acta were to be published. In this connection he had reminded Acton of the observations which he had submitted and had sent him a copy of the Concio, with the request that the Englishman correct the typographical errors.

Acton then turned to the statement which Kenrick had made in St. Louis. He interpreted it as a declaration that the archbishop did not intend to attack the council, but not as a declaration that the assembly had been properly run or that its teaching

49 Kenrick to Barnabò, January 13, 1871, in Mansi, LIII, 955.

was true. The American prelate had simply withdrawn from the struggle, he thought, but this did not imply his belief in the dogma. "I quite see," the letter continued, "that this is very dangerous and not completely honest, that he so inevitably misleads the people, but I do not believe that it is heresy, and make a great distinction between this tune and unqualified acceptance, as at Fulda." Acton concluded by telling Döllinger that but for his inspiration every Catholic in the world would give way as had Kenrick. 50 Rather than try to show how Acton's prejudice against the definition led him to misinterpret Kenrick's intentions, we will shortly let the archbishop speak for himself on the subject. At about the same time as he finally received the letter from de Angelis, he also had a letter from the English lord which asked him to explain his position in the light of the January 2 address. He did so on March 29, 1871, in a letter which will bear extensive quotation.

Archbishop Kenrick began his answer to Acton by admitting that it was only natural that news of his submission had raised questions in his correspondent's mind. He said that he was happy to have the occasion to answer those questions. First he gave his reasons for breaking the silence which he had intended to keep:

On my return from Europe I found it absolutely impossible to remain silent. My opposition in the Council had become a matter of notoriety, and the Archbishop of Cincinnati and myself were made objects of attack on the part of some of our catholic papers. Sufficient time seems to have elapsed to allow the catholic world to decide; whether or not the decrees of the Council were to be accepted. The greater number of Bishops in minority had signified their assent to them. Among other names published in one of the Brussels papers I read with surprise that of Mgr. Maret. Although some still held out, they were so few that hesitancy to declare my submission would have the appearance of rejecting the authority of the Church. This I never

50 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Aldenham, February 2, 1871. Acton spoke of Kenrick having expressed himself in a pastoral letter. The archbishop issued no such letter, as he later told his English correspondent.

intended to do. I could not defend the Council or its action; but I always professed that the acceptance of either by the Church would supply its deficiency. I accordingly made up my mind to submit to what appeared inevitable, unless I was prepared to separate myself at least in the judgment of most Catholics.

Kenrick then took up the subject of his reply to the address of the clergy on January 2. He sent a text of his speech on that occasion to Acton, and provided him with an exegesis of its most salient feature, the explanation of his reason for accepting the definition:

You will perceive that I gave as the motive of my submission 'simply and singly' the authority of the Church, by which I was well understood to mean, that the act was one of pure obedience, and was not grounded on the removal of my motives of opposition to the decrees, as referred to in my reply and set forth in my pamphlets. I submitted most reservedly . . . taking the words of the decrees in this strict and literal signification.

The archbishop next told Acton of the letter from Cardinal de Angelis, which he said he had received only on March 28. In answer to the cardinal's demand that he retract what he had said in the Concio, he had simply referred de Angelis to the letter which he had written to Barnabò on January 13. However, he was not sure that this would be sufficient, as he had heard from Rome that when the Rector of the American College told the pope that the Archbishop of St. Louis had made his submission, Pius IX was reported to have replied: "Still he must retract those pamphlets published at Naples." This Kenrick declared he would never do. He also hastened to disabuse Acton of any possible suspicion that his submission had been actuated by a desire to stand well with the Roman authorities. Despite the urging of Cardinal Barnabò, Archbishop Alemany, and of one of his suffragan bishops, he had steadfastly refused to write a pastoral letter on the council. Neither had he acted upon another suggestion of Barnabò, namely that he send a personal letter to the pope. Finally, he informed his English friend:

"I have also refused to take part in the demonstrations which have been made generally in the U. States in favour of the Temporal Power; and my name is not found among those, which, in this city, prepared and sent to Rome an address to the Pope on the occasion of the Italian occupation of his territory."

Kenrick then explained the process by which he had arrived at his present state of mind:

I reconciled myself intellectually to submission by applying Father Newman's theory of development to the case in point. The Pontifical authority as at present exercised is so different from what it appears to have been in the early Church, that it can only be supposed identical in substance by allowing a process of doctrinal development. This principle removed Newman's great difficulty and convinced him that, notwithstanding the difference, he might and should become a Catholic. I thought that it might justify me in remaining one.

But despite the intellectual submission which he had made, Kenrick told Acton that he would never attempt to prove the doctrine of papal infallibility from Scripture or tradition, and that he would leave to others the task of showing its compatibility with the facts of ecclesiastical history.

In the last section of his letter, the archbishop discussed his assertion in the Concio to the effect that papal infallibility could not become an article of faith, even by definition of a council:

My statement . . . resolves itself into two others: namely that what is not already a doctrine of faith cannot be made so by a Conciliar definition; and that Papal Infallibility, anterior to the definition was not a doctrine of faith. The first of those propositions is undeniable. The second, it appears, must be given up.

Kenrick went on to say that he was willing to acknowledge that he had been mistaken in his estimate of the acceptance of the second proposition, even in English-speaking countries. He was obviously not completely happy in his new-found knowledge, and he complained that since the Council of Trent the relationship between pope and Church had become analogous to that which obtained between king and State in the France of Louis

XIV. The fate of the teaching authority of bishops within this framework worried him, and he confessed that Maret's attempted reconciliation of the two had been unsatisfactory. He saw his own situation as a case in point. Because he had had the temerity to criticize what he thought were weak arguments for infallibility and a proof for the primacy drawn from what he considered metaphorical language, he had been convicted by the Congregation of the Index, with the approval of the pope, of having taught grave errors and was liable to have his name "gibbeted before the world as an unsound Divine." "It is evident," he concluded, "that there can be no liberty in future sessions of the Council, with this example to warn Bishops that they must not handle roughly the delicate matters on which they have to decide." 51

It is not easy to pass judgment on this letter of Kenrick to Acton. George Gordon Coulton, no friend of the Catholic Church, quoted with approval the opinion of an Anglican canon, W. J. Sparrow-Simpson, who declared: "The records of intellectual servitude present few more painful accounts than this." A consideration of Simpson's criticism will perhaps throw Kenrick's positive position into sharper relief. The canon found the letter bristling with "intellectual if not moral inconsistencies," and pointed some of them out:

[ Kenrick] thinks acceptance by the Church will redeem the doctrine from conciliar defects: but the essence of the doctrine is Infallibility apart from the Church's consent. As Bishop he is a witness to the Faith: yet he observes in silence and registers one by one the submission of other Bishops. He accepts what he will not proclaim and will not defend. Meanwhile the facts of history continue, as before, demonstrably irreconcilable with the New Decree. The sole virtue by which everything else is supposed to be redeemed is the virtue of submission. 52

51 Schulte, pp. 267-70. The letter as printed by Schulte is in somewhat mangled English. It has been quoted as it appears there, except for correction of obvious misspellings. See also Rothensteiner, History, II, 313-7.
52 Coulton, pp. 197-8. The quotation, given without page reference, is from W. J. Sparrow-Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility ( London: 1909). Simpson, of course, refused to accept Kenrick's appeal to the notion of the development of dogma. He also confused issues. The Archbishop of St. Louis did proclaim the dogma, publicly and in his cathedral city, on January 2, 1871. The issuance of a pastoral letter or subsequent preaching on the subject did not pertain to the substantial question of proclamation. Kenrick not only proclaimed the dogma, but he defended it, and gave as his motive for so doing the obedience of faith. Faith is not based on historical evidence. Kenrick saw his act of submission based on faith as a supremely intelligent act; Simpson rejected the very idea of such an act. Kenrick, moreover, never asserted that the facts of history were objectively irreconcilable with the "New Decree." He did declare that he would leave it to others to establish that reconciliation. While this might indicate subjective pique, it did not deny objective possibility. The one serious doubt left by the letter is caused by the archbishop's appeal to acceptance by the Church as a motive for his own adherence to the definition. As a support to his own faith, Kenrick was certainly entitled to look to the opinions of others, and particularly of the fathers of the council. If this was what he meant when he wrote to Acton, or when he made a similar statement during his St. Louis address, there can be no quarrel with his orthodoxy on that score. But if, as seems more likely, the archbishop meant to appeal to the consent of the Church as a condition of his acceptance of the definition, he was placed in the absurd position of demanding such consent for the dogmatic validity of an infallible decree, promulgated by the pope with the approval of the council, which had as one of its main points the exclusion of the necessity of any such consent. It may be that Kenrick's thought on the point was confused, as was that of Purcell, but in any event he made it otherwise amply clear that he intended to receive the dogma as it was defined on July 18, and therefore his subjective acceptance of the definition was beyond question.

Although the assurances which he had given had satisfied the Roman authorities, so that no further action was taken with regard to the condemnation of his pamphlets, certain strains did develop in the relationship between the Archbishop of St. Louis and the Holy See. On June 25, 1871, the twenty-fifth anniversary of Pius IX's pontificate was celebrated in St. Louis with a four-mile-long procession of Catholic societies and a general illumination of the city. The archbishop was out of town. 53 Three months later, Father Patrick Ryan wrote to explain the incident to Bernard Smith in Rome. The vicar-general claimed that the archbishop had always opposed parades for any occasions other than national events, and that he would have preferred some other means of celebrating the papal jubilee. Ryan had feared to lose his influence with Kenrick by opposing him openly--an influence which he declared had always been employed "for the restoration of cordial feelings with Rome"--and so he had arranged a compromise whereby the affair was not prohibited and was announced in the churches. The archbishop had allowed a collection for the Holy Father, and his vicars-general had signed an address of sympathy over the loss of the temporal power. The ordinary had been absent at the time, but Ryan assured Smith that he and the other vicar-general, Henry Muehlsiepen, would never have put their names to the letter without his approval. Lastly, he commented, Kenrick had "felt sorely some actions of the Propaganda," but he closed with the optimistic hope that such irritations would soon cease, and that "all will yet be, as it should be, in his relation with that Sacred Congregation." 54 With this letter the tale of Peter Richard Kenrick and the First Vatican Council came to a close.

The story of the events of July, of the summer sessions, and of the return of the bishops to the United States completes the narrative of American participation in the council. Other problems--reconstruction in the South and steadily increasing immi-

53 Rothensteiner, History, II, 316-7.
54 AASP, Smith Papers, Ryan to Smith, St. Louis, September 15, 1871.

gration in the North--occupied the attention of the American Church. The bishops of the United States had made their contribution to the twentieth ecumenical council, and it was far from insignificant. It now remains only to summarize and evaluate that contribution.


THE First Vatican Council transported the great majority of the bishops of the United States into a world that was wholly new to them. They were missionary pastors, largely taken up in their home dioceses with problems of day-to-day administration and with the organization of the Church in an environment that was vastly different from anything that their colleagues in ancient European sees knew. It was inevitable that they should at first seem to be inexperienced, perhaps naïve. European commentators judged them by the standards of the Old World and were surprised that the interests and outlook of the Americans did not fit the pattern. When the council was over, that attitude had changed to some extent. Men of the stamp of Kenrick and Vérot and Amat and others were not easily forgotten, even if they were not yet fully understood or appreciated. Spalding emerged from the sessions as the trusted associate of Cullen, Dechamps, and Manning, but the year's events had also revealed that he could not be considered the leader of the American Church as was John Carroll before him or James Gibbons after him. Many of the other bishops made little or no impact in Rome, but all of them brought back to the United States an increased awareness of the Church Universal that was to have an important influence in the crucial years ahead.

The role of their early theological formation in shaping the attitude of certain of the American bishops at the council has been exaggerated. It has been suggested that prelates like Kenrick, Purcell, Domenec, and Vérot imported Gallican leanings into the United States, and that these ideas, learned in the seminaries of France and Ireland, provided sufficient explanation for the American opposition to a definition of papal infallibility. 1 Undoubtedly, there was some such influence, and it tended to make itself manifest as some of the Americans elaborated their reasons for opposition. Vérot freely associated himself with the Gallicans, and it would be hard to deny an equation between Gallicanism and views propounded by Kenrick. The "importation theory" is more difficult to sustain in the case of McQuaid, who felt that the consent of the episcopal college was needed for an infallible proclamation. He had been educated in Canada and in the United States. The point that needs to be made is that it would be a mistake to ignore another--and, in the opinion of this writer--more fundamental reason for the stand of the minority bishops from the United States. It was a reason which they shared with their brethren who followed Spalding, and, according to the testimony of Gibbons, with the majority of their fellow American bishops. They opposed the definition on the very pragmatic grounds that it would worsen relations between Catholics and the dominant Protestant majority of their homeland. Not all the Americans moved from this pragmatic opposition into a theoretical opposition. In the final analysis, only a handful did so. The basic American objection to the definition was a practical one. 2

Another point is a corollary of the preceding. When the Americans arrived in Europe, they found the Church divided into liberal and conservative factions. Liberalism and conservatism were doctrinaire notions to the European mind. The situation was further confused by accusations that liberal Catholics were

1 See, for example, the comments of Roger Aubert in M. Nédoncelle et al., L'Ecclésiologie au XIXe Siècle ( Paris: 1960), p. 375, and Campana, II, 749-61.
2 See the explanation given of the reasons for opposition to the definition by Bishops Gibbons and Lynch, "The First Oecumenical Council of the Vatican," Catholic World, XI ( September, 1870), 842.
They distinguished between genuine Gallicans, those who believed in the doctrine, but found the evidence of tradition insufficiently clear, and inopportunists. The last category, they declared, was most numerous.

trying to incorporate the principles of the French Revolution into the Church. Americans had had their own revolution and out of it had forged a constitution that granted religious liberty to all. By and large, they were satisfied with what was again a pragmatic solution, and they had very little interest in or comprehension of European theorizing on the subject of Church and State. Unfortunately, they had never evolved a theory from their own adjustment, although, as we have seen, the germ of such a theory was present. The Church in the United States was free to carry on its apostolate. Difficulties might arise from time to time, but on the whole the constitutional guarantees were respected. The almost entirely different circumstances in this regard of the Church in Europe and the Church in America were little appreciated by the European prelates at the council. Most of them would scarcely have understood James Corcoran's comments about the schema on Church-State relations and religious toleration if they had known of them. 3 They were treated to a republican oration by Purcell, but the question never came formally before the council, and so what might have been a distinctively American contribution was never made.

There is one last characteristic of American participation that must be mentioned. In almost every speech given by a bishop from the United States, a pronounced pastoral note was present. On occasion they demonstrated a more than casual acquaintance with various branches of theology, both speculative and positive, but they were primarily pastors. Their opposition to the definition of infallibility was prompted by reasons that were basically pastoral. They objected to the tendency to turn dogmatic decrees into theological treatises and called for succinct statements of the faith to be believed. In the discussion on the catechism they showed an acute consciousness of the needs of their people. They represented a young Church, a Church with its own peculiar problems, and they demonstrated their awareness of those problems. No one would claim that the bishops of

3 Hennesey, "James A. Corcoran's mission to Rome," pp. 176-80.

the United States played a decisive role in the First Vatican Council, or even that they played a major role, but they did make their contribution to its discussions, both in and out of the council hall. At the council, the American bishops became aware of Europe's problems and Europe became aware of the American Church. For the first time, representatives of the New World attended an ecumenical council. A new era in the history of the Church had begun.



Acton, John Emerich, 9, 29, 30, 46, 51, 52, 53, 80, 83, 84, 92, 93, 94, 95, 103, 105, 111, 115, 122, 131, 144, 145, 147, 150, 176, 178, 180, 181, 189, 226, 227, 231, 240, 241, 243, 244, 252, 253, 260, 285, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325
Adames, Nickolaus, 89
Adams, John Quincy, 63
Adrian IV, 209
Alemany, Joseph Sadoc, 26, 38, 45, 48, 134, 135, 140, 141, 149, 152, 159, 169, 194, 221 -2, 224 -26, 229, 232, 262, 267, 270, 271, 274, 281, 288, 322
Alliaudi, Joseph-François, 78, 96, 166, 167
Amat, Thaddeus, 11, 28, 38, 55, 66, 101, 135 - 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 150, 151, 159, 161, 169, 170, 190, 194, 229, 251, 254, 255, 256, 265, 266, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281, 282, 288, 328
Ambrose, St., 109
Ancina, Giovanni Giovenale, 121
Angelis, Filippo de, 33, 44, 45, 49, 68, 69, 108, 147, 167, 168, 171, 220, 228, 315, 320, 321, 322
Antonelli, Giacomo, 106, 172, 289
Antoninus, St., 263
Arand, Louis, 18
Arco-Valley, Louis, 122
Arrigoni, Guilio, 238
Aubert, Roger, 106, 329
Augustine, St., 68, 193, 238
Avanzo, Bartolomeo d', 219, 275

Bacon, David W., 38, 74, 101, 125, 159, 230
Baius, Michael, 68
Baltes, Peter, 25
Banneville, Marquis de, 107
Barili, Lorenzo, 280
Barnabò, Cardinal, 23, 24, 25, 31, 35, 54, 95, 104, 121, 140, 145, 178, 180, 212, 308, 313, 320, 322
Bayley, James R., 26, 36, 38, 59, 73, 74, 101, 123, 125, 126, 142, 159, 166, 169, 179, 218, 229, 260, 262, 274, 281, 285, 288, 311

[ Previous | Main Contents ]