Dr. Pohle overlooks the fact that nowhere in the domain of science is truth or error determined by a sovereignty vested in an individual by Divine right, and commanding obedience under the grave sanction of eternal damnation; also that scholars, philosophers, artists and statesmen not in religious allegiance to the Pope know no such sovereignty. Dr. Pohle's conclusion is:

"With the imperturbable conviction that she (the Roman Catholic Church) was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ as the 'pillar and ground of the truth' (I. Tim., iii, 15) and endowed with full power to teach, to rule, and to sanctify, she regards dogmatic intolerance not alone as her incontestable right, but also as a sacred duty." 31

This dogmatic utterance was commented upon by the Hon. Alfred E. Smith, in his article in the Atlantic Monthly,32 as follows: ". . . the real meaning of these words is that for (Roman) Catholics alone the Church recognizes no deviation from complete acceptance of its dogma." In reply it is to be said that Governor Smith's interpretation might be correct were Dr. Pohle treating of practical dogmatic intolerance, but his subject is theoretical dogmatic intolerance. The following paragraph, in which we have italicized certain words, will be found in Dr. Pohle's text in connection with the above quotation. It clearly shows that the doctrine of theoretical dogmatic intolerance is not limited as Governor Smith asserts:

". . . As the true God can tolerate no strange gods, 31 C. E., vol. xiv, p. 766 a.

32 May, 1927, p. 724.

the true (Roman Catholic) Church of Christ can tolerate no strange Churches beside herself, or, what amounts to the same, she can recognize none as theoretically justified. And it is just in this exclusiveness that lies her unique strength, the stirring power of her propaganda, the unfailing vigour of her progress. A strictly logical consequence of this incontestable fundamental idea is the ecclesiastical dogma that outside the (Roman Catholic) Church there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.) Scarcely any other article of faith gives such offence to non-Catholics and occasions so many misunderstandings as this, owing to its supposed hardness and uncharitableness. And yet this proposition is necessarily and indissolubly connected with the above-mentioned principle of the exclusive legitimacy of truth and with the ethical commandment of love for the truth." 33

33 C. E., vol. xiv, p. 766 a, b.

CHAPTER X

THE TWILIGHT ZONE OF CARDINAL

GIBBONS

THERE is between the Roman Church and the State a field or territory wherein collision and conflict have often risen and may at any time rise.

In the Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII recognized the wide range of "matters of twofold jurisdiction," and, commenting on that Encyclical, Dr. Ryan refers to the frequent disagreements between Church and State "concerning this borderland.” 2 Cardinal Gibbons has given it the significant name of the Twilight Zone.

3

In a memorable magazine article already referred to that eminent prelate wrote as follows:

"We may put aside, then, as an absurdity the injurious supposition that the Pope would ever interfere in purely civil affairs. But is there not a twilight zone over which both Church and State put forth claims? True; and I grant that here a collision of authorities comes more within the horizon of possibility. But the American concept of government and of liberty puts this hypothesis outside the range of practical affairs. That concept, as I understand it, is that the Government should leave as large a liberty as possible to indi1 Appendix III, p. 317 infra.

2 The State and the Church, p. 50.

* See article, "The Church and the Republic," in North American Review, March, 1909, pp. 321-336.

viduals and to bodies within the State, only intervening in the interests of morality, justice and the common weal. There are forces at work in the country, I know, that tend to paternalism and Cæsarism in Government; but true Americanism recognizes that these forces would bring disaster on American liberties. So long as these liberties, under which we have prospered, are preserved in their fulness, there is, I assert, no danger of a collision between the State and the (Roman) Catholic Church.

"The admission, however, of the merely theoretical possibility of such a collision keeps alive the apprehension of timid Protestants and is sufficient to determine some of them to deprive (Roman) Catholics forever of the honor of the Presidency.'

99

All that the Cardinal of Baltimore said to his fellow citizens should be received with great respect. But he well knew when he referred to the absurdity of Papal interference in purely civil affairs that interference in such affairs is not anticipated by any one, and he knew equally well that his Church does assert the jurisdiction of the Pope as supreme, among Roman Catholics, in mixed matters, civic and moral, political and religious. When he said that the American concept of government left as large a liberty as possible to religious societies, the Government only intervening in the interests of morality, justice and the common weal, he knew that the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope in matters belonging to morals was hopelessly in conflict with that American concept. If the State has the right so to intervene, the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope in matters relating to morals is negatived.

The Cardinal also knew, as all men know, that if collision in his Twilight Zone was, as he said, theoretically possible, it was practically possible; for all history has demonstrated the possibility. Within its gloomy area have occurred those conflicts between the Latin Church and the State which have harassed the social life of man with hatred and his political life with violence, lighted the fires of martyrdom, sounded the tocsin of insurrection, initiated massacre, applied torture, established Inquisitions, made shambles of Privy Councils, despoiled the Church, betrayed the State, defied civil government, assassinated secular princes, murdered Christian prelates, mocked the laws of God and annulled the laws of nations. Had not the conflicting claims to sovereignty of the Roman Church and the State created Cardinal Gibbons' Twilight Zone, this dread record would never have been written. It will be said that it belongs to the past. But the conflicts of the Roman Church in 1870 with the Civic Primacy of the Italian People; later with the German Government in the Kulturkampf; more recently with France in the Association and Separation Laws; and now with Mexico, are not of a remote past. It is hardly possible, therefore, that we shall find a reduction of activity in the Twilight Zone, and some exploration of it would seem desirable in order to determine from present developments what may be expected in the future. In spite of the past there need be no hysterical alarm at phantoms of the Inquisition or echoes of rack and pin. The existing questions between civic communities and the Roman Church are modern questions and are to be settled by methods that are modern and not medieval.