with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed. "Especially with reference to the so-called 'Liberties' which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and have the same mind." .. He then claims that war, wantonly and tyrannically waged against Christianity, is a better state of things than the modern form of government he has described. He recommends unity of aim and similarity in all plans of action. "Both these objects," he adds, "will be carried into effect without fail if all will follow the guidance of the Apostolic See as their rule of life and obey the bishops 35 whom the Holy Ghost has placed to rule the Church of God. . . . But in matters merely political, as for instance the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion" (among Roman Catholics) he says, "is lawful." The necessary implication is that difference of opinion outside the "merely political" is not "lawful." Yet it is in that region of mixed moral and political questions that the constitution of the modern State requires that the consciousness and conscience of its citizens, whatever their religion, shall be free. 66 The Encyclical closes with an injunction that ... all should aim with one mind and purpose to make safe that which is the common object of all-the maintenance of (Roman Catholic) Religion and of the State." Pope Leo adds: 35 All bishops are appointed by the Pope and hold office at his pleasure. "This, Venerable Brethren, is what We have thought it Our duty to expound to all nations of the Catholic world touching the Christian constitution of States and the duties of individual citizens." CHAPTER VII ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMENT ON THE EN- THE astounding claims of the Encyclical Letter called for some attempt to adjust it to modern political thought. The task was undertaken by a distinguished American authority, the Reverend John A. Ryan, in his treatise The State and the Church. 1 Dr. Ryan first deals with Pope Leo's statement that the right of the State to rule is not necessarily bound up with any special mode of government, but, whatever be the form of government, rulers must bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler and their exemplar. 66 28 the 'divine right' to govern," [he says] "in the explanation of Pope Leo, attaches quite as truly to the president of a republic as to the head of a monarchy." "The principal concern of Pope Leo . . . is not to show precisely how moral authority is conferred upon a ruler or government, but rather to point out the fact and the nature of that authority." 66 ... whether there must be a popular election or some other manifestation of the will of the people, 1 Written and edited for The Department of Social Action of the National Catholic Welfare Council by John A. Ryan, D.D., LL.D., and Moorhouse F. X. Millar, S. J. Imprimatur of Archbishop (now Cardinal) Hayes. The numerals in the margin of this chapter refer to the pages of Dr. Ryan's treatise. whether certain constitutional forms must be observed, whether the ruler derives his credentials from a happy concatenation of events,—are questions that Pope Leo does not touch in this place. Nor does he assert or imply that every actual ruler is legitimate and therefore possessed of moral authority. He merely assumes the case of a government that is legitimately. established, and points out the moral character of its authority. His statements are directed against those who would deny the ethical nature of political power, not against any particular theory of the way in which it legitimately reaches the ruler." Dr. Ryan does not explain by what right the Pope teaches "all nations of the Catholic world" that the "divine right" to govern attaches quite as truly to the president of a republic as to the head of a monarchy. So to teach is to teach that the Primacy of the People in government is a matter of indifference, and that one form of government is as near the divine ideal as the other. That is a very important and purely political question. It is quite beyond the Pope's jurisdiction when he is speaking in virtue of his spiritual pastorate. It is subject to protest when he is speaking for the political sovereignty of the Church of Rome to the political sovereignty of the modern State. Premising that neither monarchy, aristocracy, nor democracy is unfavorably regarded by the Roman Church, Dr. Ryan proceeds to Pope Leo's teaching that the State should make "a public profession of religion," meaning, as we have seen, the Roman Catholic religion. 29 Dr. Ryan admits that the Pope's teaching is "a hard saying." The separation of the Roman Church and the State, he says, 66 which obtains substantially in the majority of countries, is generally understood as forbidding the State to make a public profession of religion.' Nevertheless, the logic of Pope Leo's argument is unassailable." There will be a wide difference of opinion with Dr. Ryan, and it is rather difficult to understand how any one who holds as true the principles underlying the guarantees of religious liberty in the Constitution of the United States can make these statements. When the Roman Church, claiming to be a paramount sovereignty in morals over a part of the State's electorate, teaches that the theory of its separation from the State is objective error, and that it is objectively true that a State should make a public profession of the Roman Catholic religion, not only is the express constitutional law of this country challenged, but the very political principles and philosophy on which the government of the country is based are, in effect, assailed. The rights of that section of the electorate which cannot accept the Roman Catholic religion are directly menaced. We quote again: "Since the State is by far the most important of the secular societies to which man belongs, its obligation to recognize and profess religion" (the Roman Catholic religion) "is considerably greater and stricter than is the case with the lesser societies. And the failure of the State to discharge this obligation produces evil results of corresponding gravity. It exhibits in most extensive proportions the destructive power of bad example." Dr. Ryan quotes from the Pastoral Letter of the American Hierarchy in 1920 a passage adopted in |