Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/100

 LAW

75

UIW

eeptable to both parties, whose decision shall be final aiid absolute. Until the revolt against the Church in the first quarter of the sixteenth century^ this power of arbitration, as has been stated, rested in the pope. With the decline of recognition of this moral power, religious sanctions in the relations between nations have gradually lessened. Instead of a decision of the pope, bearing with it the impress of the revealed truth of religion, the agreements of modern courts of arbi- tration or other referees for the settlement of interna- tional disputes have for their sanction the general sense of justice existing naturally among men, strengthened by such faith in revealed religion as may exist among them irrespective of the teaching of the Church. This is the great difference between the sanction of modern international law and that existing previous to the so-called Refc»'mation. Previous to that event the power of the Church was exercised merely in a moral way by an appeal to the faith and consciences of all men and nations, enforcing the de- crees of the arbiter of Christendom — the pope.

Controversy concerning this arbitration nas been carried on, at first with great violence, but since with a calmer and fairer recognition of the exceeding advan- tage to nascent civilization of such power as that exer- cised b3r the popes during the Middle Ages. It has been insisted that the popes not alone wished to vindi- cate their supreme spiritual power^ but cherished a de- sire to reduce all princes to a condition of vassalage to the Roman See. This is a grave error. The Church has never declared it to be an article of faith that tem- poral princes, as such, are in temporal matters subject to the pope. The confusion or thought has ansen from the fact that in the eyes of the Church the kingly power has never been looked upon as absolute and un- limited. The rights of the people were certainly not less important than those of the ruler, who owed them a duty, as they owed a duty to him. They did not exist for his benefit, and his power was to be employed, not for his own ends, but for the welfare of the nation. He was to be, above all, the servant of God, the de- fender of the Church, of the weak, and of the needy. In many states the monarch was elected only on the eocpress condition of professing the Catholic Faith and defending it against attack. In Spain, from the seventh to the fourteenth century, the king had to take such an oath, and. even when it was no longer formally administered^ ne was still understood to be bound by the obligation. The laws of Edward the Confessor, published by WiUiam the Conqueror and his suooessors, expressly provide that a king who does not fulfill his duties towards the Church must forfeit his title of king. Kings were constantly reminded that their temporal power was given them for the de- fence of the Church, and that they should imitate King David in their submission to God.

With this intimate relation of Church and State, the dergy, by reason of their education and force of char- acter and the respect paid to them because of their office, took an active part in the civic affairs of the various nations, and, until the controversies arose be tween them and the emperors who succeeded Charle- magne, Uie civil and religious powers existed harmoni- ously in the main. Owing to the limitations of human nature, and especially because the support of both Church and State necessarily came from voluntary or enforced contributions of the people, causes of friction would arise from time to time between the two pow- ers. The decrees of the councils of the Church were confirmed as la'^rs of the empire to secure their being pot in force by the civil power, and the sentence was pronounced at Chalcedon (451) that imperial laws that were contrary to canon law should be null and void. Freedom and religion were mutually supported because the Church, in which religion was incorpor- ated, was at the same time the guardian of freedom. The power of the pqpe as Head of the Church Univer-

sal 'gainetl somewhat, but not sufficiently to affect in a very mark^ degree his influence as the iicud of Christendom from the fact of his becoming a temporal prince during the eighth century. Again and again the popes have declared it was part of their duty to make and preserve peace on all sides; to mediate be- tween royal families; to hinder wars or bring them to a speedy close; to defend Christendom against the in- cursions of the Mohammedans; to incite Christian na- tions to carry on the crusades for the recovery of the Holy Places of Jerusalem. Whoever felt himself op- pressed turned to the Koman See, and, if it did not give him help, the pope was thought to have neglected his dutv. " In an age ", says Lingard. ** when warlike gains alone were prized, Europe would have sunk into endless w^ars had not the popes striven unceasingly for the maintonance and restoration of peace. They re- buked the passions of princes, and checked their un- reasonable pretensions; their position of common fa- ther of Christendom gave an authority to their words which could be claimed by no other mediator; and their legates spared neither journeys nor labour in reconciling the conflicting interests of courts, and in interposing between the swonis of contending factions the dive-branch of peace " (History of England, IV, 72; quoted by Hergenr6ther). The great Protestant writer Grotius says: "Quot dissidia sanata sint auc- toritate Romanae Sedis, quoties oppressa innocentia ibi prsEsidium reperit, non alium testem quam eun- dem Blondellum volo" (Hergenrother, "Church and State", pp. 286-7), i. e., how many quarrels were healed by the authority of the Roman See, how often oppressed innocence found support there, the same Blondel abundantly testifies.

Much misunderstanding as to the attitude of the popes has arisen from the Bull of Pope Alexander VL when, acting at the solicitation of the sovereigns oi Castile, he drew the limits of a line from the North to the South Pole, 100 Spanish leagues to the west of the most westerly island of the Azores; all that was east of the line belonged to Portugal, and all that was west of it to Spain. By this decision it has been said that the maxim ** de extemis non iudicat ecclesia" has been violated, and also the further maxim that the conversion of subjects to the Catholic Faith takes nothing from the rights of infidel princes. The true explanation of this Bull will be found when it is remembered that the pope was acting as arbitrator between two nations of explorers, when it was most desirable that a line of demarcation should be drawn between the fields to be explored. It was intended only to prevent dissension and struggles likely to arise from rival pretensions, and, since by its terms it precluded any Christian prince from inter- fering within the boundaries assigned to each nation, it was a powerful preventive of wrong-doing. It be- ing admitted that sovereignty over uncivilized peo- f)les can be claimed under certain conditions by civi- ized nations, the pope sought only to regulate the rights of such nations so as to avoid war. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that the principal motive, as professed by the Spanish explorers, was not com- merce or the acquisition of wealth alone, but the con- version of heathen nations to the Christian Faith.

It will appear from a review of the history of the centuries from the accession of Charlemagne to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire until modern times, the power of the pope as the supreme and common tribunal between nations has been exercised for the advantage of mankind in the extension of justice to all. In England, the excommunication of King John compelled the submission of a monarch, who, accord- ing to the Protestant writer Ward, had "by his vio- lence and depravity drawn down upon himself the just detestation of mankind". In the example of Emperor Lothair of Lorraine in the ninth century, an instance may be found of an intervention of the pope