Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/355

 VATICAN

307

VATICAN

eighty-third, eighty-fourth, and eighty-fifth general congregations was ahnost entirely occupied with the reports of the deputation on faith concerning the last two chapters. The report of Prince Bishop Gasser on the fourth chapter was a very notable one. In the eighty-fifth general congregation held on 13 July a general vote was taken on the entire draft. There were present 601 fathers. Of these 451 voted placet, 62 placet juxta modum (conditional affirma- tive), 88 ?ton ;jface<. Of the North American bishops only 7 voted non placet; these were Kenrick, V^rot, Domenec, Fitzgerald, MacQuaid, IMacCloskey, and Mrac. Bishop Fitzgerald still voted i^nn placet m ihe fourth public session, while on this occasion Bishop Domenec voted placet. The other five did not attend this session. In the eighty-sixth general congrega- tion the fathers condemned, on the motion of the president, two anonymous pamphlets which calumni- ated the council in the coarsest manner. One, en- titled "Ce qui se pas.se auConcile", culminated in the assertion that there was no freedom of discussion at the council. The other, "La derniere heure du Con- cile", repeated all the accusations that the enemies of the council had raised against it, and exhorted the bishops of the minority to stand firm and courageously vote non placet in the public session. On account of the war which threatened to break out between Germany and France, a number of fathers of both opinions had returned home. Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishopsof the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune. On Monday, IS July, 1870, one day before the outbreak of the Franco-German \^'ar, 4.3.T fathers of the council assembled at St. Peter's under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken ; 4.3-3 fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas, voted nnn placet. During the proceedings a thunderstorm broke over the Vatican, and amid thunder and light- ninK the pope promulgated the new dogma, like a Moses promulgating the Law on Mount Sinai.

D. The Council from the Fourth Public Ses- sion until the Prorogation. — At the close of the eighty-fifth general congregation a "Monitum"was read which announced that the council would be continued without interruption after the fourth public session. Still, the members received a general permission to leave Rome for some months. They had only to notify the secretary in writing of their departure. By 11 Nov., St. Martin's day, all were to be back again. So many of the fathers made u.se of this permission that only a few more than 100 remained at Rome. Naturally these could not take up any new questions. Consequently the draft of the decree on vacant episcopal sees, which had been amended in the meantime by the deputation of dis- cipline, was again brought forward, and debated in three further general congregations. The eighty- ninth, which was also to be the last, was held on 1 Sept. On 8 Sept. the Piedmonte.se troops entered the States of the Church at several points; on Tuesday, 20 Sept., a little before eiglit o'clock in the morning, the enemy entered Rome through the Porta Pia. The pope was a pri.soner in the Vatican. He waited a month longer. He then i.ssued on 20 Oct. the Bull, "Postquam Dei munere", which prorogued the council indefinitely. This day was the day after a Pie<lmnntp.se decree had been issued organizing the Patrimony of Peter as a Roman province. A circular letter issued by the Italian minister, Visconti Venosta, on 22 Oct., to assure the council of the freedom of meet inc. naturally met with no credence. A very remarkable letter was sent from London on the same day by Archbishop Spalding to Cardinal Bamabo,

prefect of the Propaganda at Rome. In this letter he made the proposition, which met the approval of Cardinal CuUen, Archbishop Manning, and Arch- bishop Dechamps, to continue the council in the Bel- gian city of Mechlin, and gave ten reasons why this city seemed suitable for such sessions. Unfortu- nately the general condition of affairs was such that a continuation of the council even at the most suitable place could not be thought of.

III. Acceptance of the Decrees of the Coun- cil. — After the council had made its decision every- one naturally looked with interest to those members of the minority who had maintained their opposi- tion to the definition of infallibihty up to the last moment. Would they recognize the decision of the council, or, as the enemies of the council desired, would they persist in their opposition? As a matter of fact, not a single one of them was disloyal to his .sacred duties. As long as the discussions lasted they ex- pressed their views freely and without molestation, and sought to carry them into effect. After the decision, without exception, they came over to it. The two bishops who on 18 July had voted non placet advanced to the papal throne at the same session and acknowledged their acceptance of the truth thus defined. The Bishop of Little Rock said simply and with true greatness, "Holy Father, now I believe." It is not possible in this brief space to mention the accession of each member of the minority. As con- cerns the members from North America who are of special interest here. Bishop ^'^^ot of St. Augustine gave his adhesion to the dogma while still at Rome in a letter addressed on 2.5 July to the secretary of the council. Bishop Mrac of Sault-Saint-Marie sent his declaration of adherence at the latest by Jan., 1S72. A year later Bishop Domenec of Pittsburgh did the same. In 187.5 Bishop MacQuaid of Rochester, if not earlier, annoimced his adherence to the dogma by its formal .and pubhc promulgation. When Arch- bishop Kenrick of St. Louis returned to his diocese on .30 Dec, 1870, he made an address at the reception given him, in which he first gave the reasons that had decided his position at the council as long as the ques- tion was open to discussion, and then closed with the declaration that, now the council had decided, he submitted unconditionally to its decree. He ex- pressed himself similarly in a letter of 13 .Ian., 1871, to the prefect of the Propaganda. When Lord Acton questioned the archbishop in regard to his submission, the latter replied by a long letter dated 29 March, 1871, which shows, it may be, a certain discontent, but which clearly confirmed his behcf in the infalli- bility of the pope. In the same way the distinguished Frenchmen and Englishmen who, outside of the council, had expressed opinions antagonistic to the promulgation of infalhbihty, e. g. Gratry, Newman, Montalembert, and finally, as it appears, Acton, also submitted after the decision had been made. On the other hand, in Germany a ntmiber of Professor Dol- linger's adherents apostatized from the Church and formed the sect of Old Catholics. Dollinger also apostatized, without, however, connecting him.self with any other denomination. In Switzerland the opponents of the coimcil united in a sect called Cliris- tian Catholics. Outside of these, however, the Cath- olics of the entire world, both clergj' and laity, ac- cepted the decision of the council with great joy and readiness. After the clo.se of the Franco-German War the German Government m,ade the dogma of inf.-dli- bility the excuse for wliat is called the Kvlturkampf. Yet the bishops iind priests were ready to hear loss of property, imjjrisonment, and exile rather than be dis- loyal to any part of their ecclesia.stical duties. The Austrian Government took the opportunity offered bv the definition to relieve it.self from uncomfortable obligations, and declared that, as I he other contracting party had changed, the Concordat with the Roman