The Social Rights of

Our Divine Lord

Jesus Christ, the King

Adapted from the French of:

Rev. A. Philippe, CSS.R.

By

Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., B.A., D.Ph., D.D.

LORETO PUBLICATIONS

FITZWILLIAM NEW HAMPSHIRE

AD 2017

Cum permissu Superiorum Religiosorum.

Nihil obstat:

Joannes Kelly,

Censor Theol. Dep.

Imprimi potest:

† Eduardus,

Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.

Dublini, die 17 Maii, anno 1932.

First Published: 1932

2017 Loreto Edition – All Rights Reserved

ISBN 978-1-62292-120-1

Loreto Publications

P. O. Box 603

Fitzwilliam, NH 03447

603-239-6671 – www.LoretoPubs.org

Layout and Cover Design by Michael Hamilton

Cover image: Christ Tempted by John Ritto Penniman

Printed and Bound in the United States of America

Prayer to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Universal King

O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge Thee as Universal King. For Thee all creatures have been made. Do Thou exercise over me all Thy rights. Renewing my baptismal vows, I renounce Satan with all his works and pomps, and I promise to live as a good Catholic. Especially do I pledge myself to work with all my power for the triumph of the rights of God and of Thy Church.

Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer Thee all my poor actions to obtain that all hearts may recognize Thy Sacred Royalty, and that thus the reign of Thy peace may be established throughout the entire world. Amen.

Plenary Indulgence once a day on the usual conditions.

Sacred Penitentiary, 21st February, 1923.

Imprimatur:

Mechliniae, 20 Maii, 1927

J. Thys, can. lib. cens.

Permissu Ordinarii Dioec. Dublin., die 17 Augusti, anno 1927.

Table of Contents

Foreward

Introduction

Chapter I: The Supreme Authority of God Over All Society

Chapter II: Necessary Consequences of that Created State Which is the Essence of Human Society

Chapter III: The Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ Over Every Society and Every Nation

Chapter IV: The Conditions and Exact Meaning of the Kingship of Jesus Christ

Chapter V: Spiritual Nature of the Kingship of Christ

Chapter VI: Power of the Church in the Social Order Established by God

Chapter VII: A Fundamental Error of Our Day

Chapter VIII: Inalienable Rights of Truth and Goodness

Chapter IX: The Sin of Liberalism: the Sin of Europe and of the World

Chapter X: Punishments Inflicted by God On Countries Which Abandon Him

Chapter XI: Remedy For Present Ills

Chapter XII: Action

Chapter XIII: On the Organisation of the Apostolic League

Chapter XIV: The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789

Chapter XV: Recapitulation: the Feast of Christ the King

Quas Primas: Encyclical Letter of Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI

Appendix I: Letter from Cardinal Gasparri to Rev. Father A. Philippe

Appendix II: The League of the Kingship of Christ

Foreword

The Semaine Catholique, which was organized at the beginning of 1926, expressed the desire to have a clear statement of the doctrine of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ in catechetical form. The work, of which an adaptation is here presented in English dress, was undertaken by the Rev. A. Philippe, C.SS.R., in order to meet the wish thus expressed. In less than six months the first edition was sold out. This adaptation is made from the second edition.

It has been thought better to omit the question and answer form of the original work, and to recast the author’s words in the shape of a conversation between a teacher and an earnest seeker after truth. The latter may be taken as representative of the educated layman, who is puzzled by the statements he meets with in the newspapers and in current literature, and who wants to have a clear grasp of the order of the world. The teacher accordingly exposes the Catholic doctrine on the Rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ in society. It is hoped that the present form, while losing none of the accuracy of the original Catechism, will be found more vivid and less pointedly didactic.

In Chapter XI, where our co-operation with our divine Lord Jesus Christ is treated of, a number of passages from the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI, On Universal Reparation to the Sacred Heart, published after the appearance of the French original, have been inserted. The official teaching of the Vicar of Christ will bring home to every Catholic the importance of the doctrine set forth. In Chapter XII, as well as in earlier chapters, many points have been given a more extended treatment, owing to their importance for Irish Catholics.

In order to increase the usefulness of the work, I have thought it well to add a special chapter on the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. During my college and university courses I suffered from the lack of books giving the integral truth about the real history of the world. In the hope of sparing similar suffering to others, I have insisted on the significance of the Declaration. Imperfect though the chapter is, it will be of help in understanding that history is unintelligible, if it is not the account of man’s forfeiture of supernatural life and his restoration thereto by incorporation into the Mystical Body of Jesus. If the knowledge that we are fighting a stern battle, under the banner of Christ the King, Who came down to lead our fallen race to victory, helps to fire with enthusiasm for the great cause even a few young Irish hearts, I shall be amply repaid for the labor involved in this little work.

Grateful thanks are due to Messrs. Browne and Nolan for permission to add on the translation of the Encyclical Letter, Quas Primas, of His Holiness Pope Pius XI, published by them.

The translation used for the Letters of Pope Leo XIII is that published by Benziger Brothers. Where no indication is given, in the case of other Pontifical Letters and Documents, the translation has been made directly from the original text.

Two Appendices have been added. One gives the Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State of His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, to Father Philippe, C.SS.R., in praise of the Apostolic League founded by him for the promotion of the Kingship of Christ. The other contains an account of An Rioghacht, the League of the Kingship of Christ, founded and directed by Rev. E. Cahill, S. J.

D. Fahey, C.S.Sp.

Senior Scholasticate, Blackrock College,

Feast of Pentecost, 1932.

Loreto Publication’s

Introduction to

Father Denis Fahey

When Jesus Christ, our King and Master, taught us how to pray to His Father and Our Father, he used the phrase “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” In heaven God’s will is perfectly accomplished, but here on earth, fallen mankind cannot fulfill God’s will without the constant assistance of sanctifying grace communicated to the world through the sacraments of His church.

After the fall of Adam, a world perfectly ordered to God’s divine will was corrupted and dis-order became the ‘natural’ state of mankind and the created universe. It was the role of the Messias to re-order this fallen world—to bring a new state of order to the world His Father had created. The means for establishing that order by which a fallen world may return to God is the Catholic church and the life of sanctifying grace. As Christians newly born into the life of grace—a ‘supernatural’ state of being—we are all called to bring as much order to this world as is possible, all the while never forgetting that this world is in a fallen and corrupted state and that a ‘utopia’ is not possible here on earth. The Church of Christ is constantly opposed in this mission by all of the forces of ‘naturalism’ or dis-order, that is those forces opposed to the supernatural life of divine grace. It is the duty of all Christians of the Church Militant to battle against these forces.

This calling of Christians to the battle for order was the motto of the pontificate of Pope Saint X. That motto was Instaurare Omnia in Christo, “to restore all things in Christ”, taken from Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 1:10. The modern popes have frequently warned us of the dangers of ‘naturalism’, which denies the supernatural life of grace and militates against it, and they have called us to fight in our private and public lives against this pernicious error. No priest has heeded that call and risen to defend the supernatural life of grace as clearly and as vigorously as Father Denis Fahey. He truly understood, and explained why, there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, either for individual persons or for the life of society and of nations.

A clear image of just what the life of a Christian in a society imbued from top to bottom with the social principles of Christ the King would be like, is not a widely shared understanding in much of the Christian world today, especially in America. We must remember that Christianity is a religion of world conquest! We are called to conquer the world for Christ and to do all that we can to subdue persons and nations to His will. A Catholic undertakes this battle first within himself and then within his family. Soon the influence of many families begins to pervade the community and then the nation or state. If Christian people do not have the full picture in their mind of exactly what God’s Plan for Order in this world would look like in its accomplishment, then they can have no long-term strategy for victory and little hope of achieving it. We have all of the tools required and all of the powers of heaven backing us. Let us take into our hearts and our minds the full plan and its potential for the realization of peace in the world and Christ the King of heaven and earth will bless our efforts. This was the permanent admonition of Fr. Fahey.

Father Fahey was a seminarian and was ordained in Rome during the pontificate of Pius X. The young priest was deeply influenced and inspired by that pope. When he penned a short Apologia for his work, Father Fahey expressed his vocation in this fashion:

“When in Rome I began to realize more fully the real significance of the history of the world, as the account of the acceptance and rejection of Our Lord’s Program for Order. I used to ask permission to remain at the Confession of St. Peter, while the other scholastics went round the basilica.

“I spent the time there going over the history of the world, and I repeatedly promised Saint Peter that if I ever got the chance, I would teach the truth about his Master in the way he and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, wanted it done. That is what I have striven to do and am doing.”

Father Fahey not only clarified, explained, taught, and defended ‘Our Lord’s Program for Order’ in the world, he also actively fought and exposed the persons who were the enemies of that order. Because he did so, he has often been called ‘negative’ or ‘anti-Semitic’, or ‘much too concerned with Masonic conspiracies’. These are the pathetic terms of opprobrium hurled with such energy by those enemies of Christ whose plans he has effectively opposed. But in this he was in good company with St. Louis Marie de Montfort and Our Lady, who appears ‘terrible as an army set in battle array’ to the enemies of her divine son.

Listen to the words of St. Louis Marie as he stresses the two functions of our Blessed Mother, the positive one of making Our Lord known, and the negative one of making war upon His enemies.

“Mary must be manifested more than ever by her mercy, her power and her grace in these latter times; by her mercy, bringing back and lovingly welcoming the poor strayed sinners who will be converted and will return to the Catholic Church; by her power, against the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews, and men hardened in impiety, who will rise in terrible revolt to seduce all those who oppose them and to make them fall by promises and threats; she must also be made manifest by her grace animating and sustaining the valiant soldiers and faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who shall battle for His interests.

“And lastly, Mary must be terrible to the devil and his ministers, as an army in battle array, principally in these latter times, because the devil, knowing that he has but little time, and now less than ever, to damn souls, will every day redouble his efforts and his combats. He will before long raise up cruel persecutions and will lay terrible snares for the faithful servants and true children of Mary whom he finds more difficult to conquer than the others.”

Loreto Publications is committed to re-issuing all of the previously published works of Fr. Fahey and making them available to a much wider audience. The works of Fr. Fahey are critically important for Catholics to read, understand, and disseminate in our day when the forces of ‘organized naturalism’ or ‘anti-supernaturalism’ seem to be rampaging triumphantly through the Church and the world today. Arm yourselves for the battle!

Loreto Publications offers the

following works of Fr. Denis Fahey:

Mental Prayer According to the Teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1927)

The Kingship of Christ According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1931)

The Social Rights of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ the King (1932) Adapted from the French of Rev. A. Phillippe C.SS.R. by Fr. Denis Fahey C.S.Sr.

The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (1935)

The Rulers of Russia (1938)

The Workingmen’s Guilds of the Middle Ages (1943)

A translation of the work by Dr. Godefroid Kurth C.S.G.)

The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism (1943)

Money Manipulation and the Social Order (1944)

The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society (1945)

The Tragedy of James Connolly (1947)

The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers (1948)

The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953)

The Church and Farming (1953)

The Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion (1954)

(A translation of the work by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani)

Editor’s notes

Loreto’s editions of the works of Father Fahey have been newly typeset and updated with some changes to the original text. The alterations are as follows:

1. We have changed the spelling of many words to match modern American spelling rules. Some examples are: neighbor for neighbour, show for shew, labor for labour, realize for realise, mold for mould, program for programme, etc.

2. We have made use of current punctuation and capitalization rubrics.

3. We have made a few minor corrections of typographical errors in the original texts but have NOT altered the words of Fr. Fahey nor made any deletions.

4. We have made uniform the notations of scripture references in the currently accepted fashion. For example, we use Mt. 24: 6–9 instead of Matt. xxiv 6, 7, 8, 9.

Chapter I

The Supreme Authority

of God Over All Society

Teacher: You know, of course, the first articles of the Apostles’ Creed. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. The Church expresses the same truth in the Creed at Mass. “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

Student: Yes, but what do you mean by the words “Creator (Maker) of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible”?

T: By those words I mean that everything that exists other than God has been made by God, and that all things visible and invisible have been created by Him.

S: What distinction do you make between visible and invisible things?

T: On the one hand, there are things which fall under the sense of sight, of hearing, or of the other senses, which are in some way tangible: these are the visible things. There are, on the other hand, things which really exist, of which one can have knowledge, but which cannot be perceived by the senses.

S: Would you kindly give some examples of invisible things.

T: The angels, the human soul, human thought and will, human power and authority—these are all examples of invisible things.

S: But is not human society also an invisible thing?

T: It is not visible in the sense that one can handle and touch it, but it is fully perceptible in the sense that one can see that it exists. Thus, for instance, it is easy to perceive that one nation is distinct from another, and that an association, public or private, is distinct from any other association.

S: Then society, whether considered as visible or invisible, is a creature?

T: Yes, and when in the Creed we say “I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible,” we solemnly declare that every society, as well as man himself has been created by God, and consequently depends upon Him absolutely. This doctrine holds for every society, whether natural, that is to say, founded in a profound inclination of human nature, or voluntary, that is to say due to the action of the human will.

S: May I have some proofs of the created nature of society?

T: Besides the testimony of the Holy Ghost in scripture, and the testimony of Holy Church, proofs from reason can be brought forward. Every society is made up of men. Every man is a creature. It follows that the relations of men with one another are created. Moreover, every society, like every nation, forms a real entity. This entity is a moral whole, having a real existence other than God’s existence. Since it is not God, it has been created by God, and accordingly it must be dependent on Him in an absolute fashion, as every creature is dependent on its Creator.

Another fundamental truth is this: man does not depend on God solely because he is a creature, but also because God is his supreme and final end. It is evident that the last end of every created thing is God. But more especially is God the last end, supreme and infinite, of every intelligent creature. Man is made to attain to God. He must understand that he has been created for this end and must desire to reach it. Now God has endowed man with a nature such that he cannot live otherwise than in society. As a social being, then, man must have God as his final and supreme end. Unless we hold this we must hold that man finds the end of society in society itself, which would be to make of society an idol. Societies are not eternal. It is clear then that their ultimate end lies in this—that, in and through them, the intellect and the will of their members should attain to God.

Chapter II

Necessary Consequences of that Created State Which is the Essence of Human Society

Student: Well, then, what is the immediate consequence of the created nature of every society?

Teacher: The first consequence is the necessary, absolute and complete dependence on God of every society—of every established social order, as of every possible social order.

S: I do not understand, I fear, the dependence of a social organism on God. A social organism has not got a conscience. Only the individual can grasp the meaning of duty and carry out moral obligations.

T: I know, but is there not a certain confusion of thought to be noted in what you say? In the first place, creation, and the dependence that results therefrom for every society, is not a consequence of the fact that man is endowed with a conscience, but of the fact that man has received from God being and existence. His creation did not depend upon himself: he is a created being, whether he likes it or not. It is the same for every society. Its coming into being did not depend upon itself: its created condition belongs to its very essence. Moreover, every community is a group of intelligent beings, and such a group has, as its first duty, to understand what is essential to it. It must, therefore, recognize the primary duties that are incumbent on it by the very fact that it is a created being. Now the first truth on which all others depend, and which imposes obligations on the creature, is that of the sovereign dominion of God over every creature and the absolute dependence of every creature on God. A group of intelligent beings not recognizing this truth would fail in its strictest duty and would infallibly go astray. It is, then, rigorously necessary that every state, every nation, in a word, every human society, should be absolutely subject to God. Thus, this obligation of social order is proclaimed by the conscience of a group or social body, just as by the individual conscience.

S.   I understand, but has that created condition, which is proper to every society, no other consequences?

T.   Another consequence is that every society depends upon God in its very constitution. By that I mean that everything that goes to make up a community must be impregnated with God. Let me explain further. In every community must be found a union of wills, an adaptation of means to end, an end to be attained. In each of these elements the society, being God’s creature, depends upon Him. It follows as a strictly logical consequence that when a community is constituted, it should examine the end to be attained by it from the point of view of the ultimate and supreme end—God Himself. The union of wills must be made in practical dependence on God. The adaptation of means to end must be in conformity with the demands of the eternal law. Accordingly, when a state is first formed, its first duty is to place at the basis of its charter or constitution and of its legislation the most absolute dependence upon God, and the most complete conformity to the eternal law. To state the contrary would be to set up disorder and to open the way to idolatry.

S: But in saying this you seem to affirm that states are obliged to offer worship to God.

T: Quite so. What has been said above applies to every group of intelligent beings. The first duty of every state, every nation, and of the League of Nations itself, is to be convinced of its primary obligations. God is the God of societies as He is the God of individuals, but as it is the property of societies to act socially, therefore, as societies, they owe to God absolute dependence, recognition and acknowledgment of this dependence and worship.

S: But how can states be obliged to offer worship to God when in fact God is unknown to them?

T: To that question I answer in the words of St. Paul. In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans he speaks as follows: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:

“Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it unto them.

“For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

“Because that when they knew God, they have not glorified Him as God, nor given thanks” (Rom. 1:18–21).

The Holy Spirit declares, through the mouth of the Doctor of the Gentiles, that the pagans, immersed in all the horrors of false belief and evil practice, are inexcusable, in that they have not known and glorified God. He accuses them of having rejected the light: he can find no excuse for them, modern states are just as truly without excuse as the pagans of whom St. Paul speaks. We cannot admit that their attitude is in conformity with the requirements of reason. To rulers and leaders as to all others God makes Himself manifest by His works. If any of them refuse to exact that an official and social worship be offered to God by the state, they are inexcusable, for the reasons given by St. Paul. Simply from the point of view of reason, governments, parliaments, legislators, all alike must offer to God that worship from which they cannot dispense themselves, and from which they cannot dispense any state or any community.

The conclusion from these facts is that even if a state could be excused for not submitting to the directions of the Church, which are unknown to it, nothing can excuse it from the duty of worship of God and from submission to the divine precepts of the eternal law.

S: You consider then all public men to be inexcusable who, for political and prudential reasons, dare not assert the supreme authority of God over all created things, and especially over social organisms?

T: Certainly. The Apostle St. Paul goes further. He declares that God’s wrath will be manifested against the nations who disobey this primordial law. Those who refuse to accept God as Creator, Ruler and Sovereign Lord of all society, are going against the natural law and the light of their reason. We cannot accept their theories: we must combat them with the utmost energy.

S.   Am I to understand then that under these conditions all statecraft is and must be subordinated to God?

T.   That is so: all statecraft must be subordinated to God. Whatever meaning is given to the term “statecraft” or “politics” it must be recognized that it expresses a reality dependent on God. Moreover, it is here above all that we must apply that principle of our last end, set forth above. We can never lose sight of the fact that man is placed on earth to prepare for eternal happiness. All institutions, divine or human, have for their last end the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Hence all social institutions, all political activities and lines of direction, must take into account this fundamental truth, that man is made, not for this world, but for eternity. The constitutions of nations, their legislation, their legal, administrative and other organization must all envisage, first and before all, the last end of all human existence. All statecraft must, like everything else, on account of this last end, be in conformity with the eternal law of God, with the Creed and with the Ten Commandments.

S: But this would seem to mean that the state must be totally subordinated to God: is not this rather the case with the Church?

T: Undoubtedly, the Church, like every society, owes to God complete obedience and submission. There are in the world many and various societies, among which two predominate over all others—the Church and the state. If we are insisting on the dependence of the state upon God it is because of current errors on this subject. The submission owed by the Church to God must be all the greater because it is her task to guide men towards their eternal destiny. She depends upon God for her very existence and for the means which He puts at her disposal for the sanctification of souls. She depends upon God too by the obligation that rests upon her of pointing out alike to private citizens and public men, to private associations and to states, the road to be followed for the attainment of life eternal. To sum up—every society depends upon God: the state is a society: it depends upon God. The Church is a society: it depends upon God, its dependence being of a more intimate character. The Church is charged with the diffusion of the inner supernatural life of God.

S: All this would seem logically to establish that there is an obligation on Church and state to be in agreement in the government of men.

T: That is the case. The Sovereign Pontiffs have always taught that there should be a perfect understanding between Church and state. The reason of this is simple enough: Church and state are two institutions established by God. The mission of the Church is to guide men to their final happiness. The mission of the state is to procure the material and temporal well being of the subjects. This wellbeing must be sought by the state in such wise that its subjects may not only not be hindered but be actually favored in the pursuit of their final end. As his last end is man’s supreme object, it is evident that everything must be subordinated to it. As the Church is charged with the mission of guiding men with certainty to their last end, it is God’s will that she should be obeyed. Her power, without extending to matters of a purely material order, which involve, that is, no spiritual interest, does extend to the manner of using temporal and passing goods, with a view to attaining the final end of man. Pius IX and Leo XIII have explicitly condemned the doctrine of the separation of Church and state.

S: These precepts are exceedingly serious. It would seem that, to be in accord with the divine truth and divine Law, no human intelligence should ever deliberately entertain the notion of a state, a community, or even politics being independent of God?

T: In truth, a thought of this sort fully accepted amounts to an explicit declaration of independence on the part of the creature against its Creator. It is a revolt of the the mind against God and this revolt is a sin of exceptional gravity.

Chapter III

The Sovereign Lordship Of Jesus Christ Over Every Society And Every Nation

Teacher: You recollect the second article of the Creed? “I believe in Jesus Christ our Lord.” And in the Credo at Mass we say: “I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God…God of God…Who for us men and for our salvation was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made Man.”

Student: As we are speaking of things social, may I ask if there is a special relationship between the sacred humanity of Jesus Christ and the social order established in the world?

T: Undoubtedly there must be. Man is so created that he is made for social life. By his nature and the conditions of his existence he is called to live in society. Jesus Christ became man to bring man to his eternal supernatural happiness. The divine Redeemer must then have a positive influence on all those conditions through which He must guide man to his end. But man, being made for society, must tend towards his end as a social being, that is to say, he must tend thereunto by means of that society for which he is made. This society cannot be a final end but only a means. To be a means, it must be sanctified and sanctifying. This can only be obtained in Christ and through His sacred humanity. Thus it is clear that there must be a special relation between the sacred humanity of Christ and the social order established in the world.

S: I follow you so far, but why speak of Jesus Christ specially? Is He not God and does not all that is said of God apply to Him?

T:  Certainly all that is said of God applies to the eternal Word made Man for us. Jesus Christ is God: every society therefore depends on Him with a sovereign and absolute dependence. But we must always remember that in Jesus Christ there is but one person and two natures, the person of the Word; the divine and the human nature.

The person of the Word of God has assumed human nature and united it hypostatically to Himself. Thus the human nature of Christ subsists only in the Word. In Jesus Christ human nature is endowed with altogether special qualities, is clothed with altogether special conditions.

S: May I hear what are the special conditions attaching to the sacred humanity of Christ by the dignity accruing to it from the hypostatic union?

T: The actions of Christ are theandric, that is to say, actions of God in a human nature. This is a consequence of the fact that actions are always attributed to the person performing them. As in Jesus Christ there is only one person, not two persons, all the acts of Christ’s human nature are imputed to the divine person.

S: Now, then, explain the Redemption; is not Jesus Christ at the same time our Redeemer?

T: Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. He redeemed the human race through His human nature. It is in this nature that He is priest and mediator between the Blessed Trinity and mankind. As man He is also King of the human race. To understand the special powers and mission with which Jesus Christ as man is divinely endowed, we must not lose sight of the conditions attaching to the divine Master on account of His quality of Man-Mediator. He is truly man, He is truly God. As God He depends upon nobody. He can receive nothing from anybody, and all things depend on Him. As man He has, like every other creature, to receive everything from God, but under special conditions.

Chapter IV

The Conditions and Exact Meaning of the

Kingship of Jesus Christ

Student: What is the fundamental condition of the Kingship of Jesus Christ over society?

Teacher: This condition consists in the explicit will of the Holy Trinity to give to Jesus Christ as man a true and absolute royal power. It is not a question of the rights of the Word of God, which are infinite, but of the rights and powers which God gives to the sacred humanity assumed by the Word.

S: God has made known to us His will in this matter?

T: Undoubtedly. In the Encyclical Quas Primas Pope Pius XI brings forward two proofs, indicating the divine will in this matter. He sets out the first proof thus:

“The foundation of this power and dignity of our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. ‘Christ,’ he says, ‘has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but His by essence and by nature’ (Lk. 10). His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to Him, as man, angels and men are subject, and must recognize His empire, by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures.”[1]

This is how the Pope reasons on the subject: the hypostatic union of the human nature with the person of the Word confers on the human nature assumed by Christ a transcendent dignity. This necessarily demands every other dignity with which a human nature can be invested. It would be inacceptable and inadmissible that, beside that human nature taken by the Word, could be placed any dignity which should have a right to any kind of superiority over Christ as man. It would be inadmissible that a prince or a legislative assembly could pronounce itself legally or in effect superior to Him whom God has clothed with the transcendent prerogative of the hypostatic union. This is the first and essential foundation of the kingly power attributed to Jesus Christ.

S: Explain the second doctrinal foundation of this truth taught by Pius XI.

T: But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this, that Christ is our King, by acquired as well as by natural right, for He is our Redeemer. Would that those who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: ‘You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled’ (1Pet. 1:18–19). We are no longer our own, for Christ has purchased us ‘with a great price’ (1Cor. 6:20); our very bodies are the ‘members of Christ’ (1Cor. 6:15).

Here again let us follow the Pope’s reasoning. Every creature belongs to God. Man had lost the divine life by sin. He had no means of redeeming himself. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, made Man, took upon Himself the payment of this debt by His loving death. In return the Holy Trinity made Him a gift of the whole human race and of all created things. Especially It conferred on Jesus Christ the privilege of forming one body, one moral entity with all those who should be united to Him by grace.

S: Did Jesus Christ make known the intentions of the Holy Trinity on the subject of His royal power?

T: Jesus, with a majesty wholly divine, declared to the whole world and to all ages “All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Notice that the power of which He speaks has been given to Him, hence, He has obtained it. Notice again that all power having been given to Him, there exists on the earth no other power than that of Christ. The power has been given to Him by the Blessed Trinity; consequently, the power of kings, of princes, of all constituted authority is the power of Christ. This explains the words of St. Paul, “There is no power except from God” (Rom. 13:1). This is the genesis of power. All power comes from God and can come only from Him. All power has been given to Christ, hence all power passes through Christ and comes from Christ.

S: Can it be deduced from this that Jesus Christ has a real authority over every society?

T: That question must be answered with a very clear affirmative. First of all, as Leo XIII says, authority is an essential property of every society. Without authority there is no society. Every society is regulated by authority. Put these truths together and you will reach the following conclusion: the authority to be found in a society or a country is given by Christ; it comes from Him and depends upon Him. It is then necessarily of such a nature that it ought to be subject to Christ. Jesus is in fact the true King of all societies and their authority belongs to Him.

S: Is the threefold power—legislative, executive and judicial—spoken of by Pius XI, also vested in Christ?

T: Yes: for His power would be meaningless if it did not include the right to make laws, judge, pardon, condemn. This threefold power is inseparable from the authority with which Christ our Lord is invested by God.

S: We were speaking of another reason proving the Kingship of Christ over society.

T: In the very nature of every society, and especially in its end and object, we meet with another proof of the Kingship of Jesus Christ over the whole social order.

S: Is not the end of every society laid down by authority?

T: Yes: to recognize that authority exists in a society is to affirm that that authority should guide the society to its special end. The authority brings about the union of the wills that tend to effect the end. The end of any community may be looked at from its own special angle, but this special angle must never allow us lose sight of the supreme and last end.

Now, if authority has the mission of conducting to its end the community which it governs, it is clear that authority deriving from Christ—and we repeat that all authority comes from Him—must have for supreme end the end of the life and death of Jesus Christ. It is impossible that our Lord should agree to delegate to anyone an authority over which His own should not remain supreme in view of the final end: the communication of the divine life by incorporation into his Mystical Body. In like manner it must be impossible for Him to renounce the least atom of authority over the means employed by society to attain its end, or over the wills which are linked together into society.

[1]  The translation of the Encyclical Quas Primas, which appeared in The Tablet of January 16, 1926, has been used here and in some other places.

Chapter V

Spiritual Nature of the Kingship of Christ

Student: The fact that Jesus Christ’s Kingship is spiritual must surely influence the case profoundly.

Teacher: Quite true. Pope Pius XI leaves us in no doubt about the matter. He declares

“This kingdom is primarily spiritual, and concerned especially with spiritual things. That this is so the above quotations from scripture amply prove, and Christ by His own action confirms it. On many occasions when the Jews, and even the Apostles, wrongly supposed that the Messias would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have proclaimed Him King, He shrank from the honor and escaped from them by flight. Before the Roman magistrate he declared that His kingdom was not of this world. The Gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed exclusively to that of Satan and to the power of darkness. It demands of its subjects a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, and a spirit of gentleness. They must hunger and thirst after justice, and, more than this, they must deny themselves and carry the cross.

“Christ as our Redeemer purchased the Church at the price of His own blood; as priest He offered Himself, and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins. Is it not evident, then, that His kingly dignity partakes in a manner of both these offices?

“It would be a great error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to Him by the Father, all things are in His power. Nevertheless, during His life on earth He refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although He Himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, He did not, nor does He today, interfere with those who possess them. ‘Non eripit mortalia cpii regna dat coelestia.’ ‘He taketh not away earthly kingdoms, who bestoweth heavenly ones’” (Hymn for the Feast of the Epiphany).

S: Very clear words indeed, but I fear they contain much more than I grasp at first hearing.

T: Remember what has been already said. In virtue of the hypostatic union and of His work of redemption, Christ possesses all authority over all created beings. Man must reach his final end, through Jesus Christ. Christ is the Way he must follow to win salvation, the Truth destined to enlighten every man coming into the world, the Life whose mission it is to give life to souls by grace.

In virtue of His sovereign power our Lord must act upon every man, so as to be for each individual, in all reality, the Way, the Truth and the Life. In virtue again of this sovereign power which gives Him full authority over every society and over all other authority. He must of necessity so act that, on the one hand, no human power may prevent or ever can prevent Him from being for each one the Way, the Truth and the Life; and, on the other hand, that all human society should work together effectively in making Christ to be for each one the Way, the Truth and the Life.

The social and spiritual character of the Kingship of Christ emerges very clearly from the above considerations.

Jesus Christ is King. All power has been given to Him, even over temporal things. This power may of right be exercised in the temporal order as much as in the spiritual; but in fact, it is limited to spiritual intervention, to the furtherance of the interests of the divine life which comes to us from Him as priest.

S: To what degree does our divine Lord intervene spiritually in social organizations?

T: There are no limits to His power of intervention. In right and in fact, Christ the King must intervene, of Himself and through His Church (that is, by her teaching), in the fundamental constitutions of peoples and of countries, in all social organisms and even in the League of Nations. This is necessarily the case, because it is the sole means for the divine King to accomplish the divine mission which He has set Himself on this earth and which has been confided to Him by the Blessed Trinity.

S: From all of which it rigidly follows that Jesus Christ is the King of all nations?

T: He is in very truth. In the words of the prophet: All nations are given Him for an inheritance, and His empire, or more accurately His property, extends to the ends of the earth.

S: Then, does not the public worship that must be offered to Jesus Christ, God and Man, follow from the spiritual character of His kingship?

T: Your reasoning is perfect. Public homage of adoration and love, thanksgiving and reparation, prayer and petition, is in fact owing to Christ in His Godhead. This homage is laid upon Christ as man, and upon all men by Christ as King. Christ the King exercises a spiritual kingship because He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He exercises it also because He alone has the means of worthily adoring the most Holy Trinity and accomplishing in a fitting manner all His duties towards It. One of the ends of our Lord’s earthly pilgrimage is the carrying out of these duties by man. It belongs then to His kingship to lay upon man and upon human society those various kinds of spiritual worship, for they are the only means, both for man and for society, to attain their final end, union with God in Three divine persons.

Chapter VI

Power of the Church in the

Social Order Established by God

Student: What is the will of Christ, King of the Social Order, with regard to the Church?

Teacher: The object of His will is twofold. First, as we have said, the Church owes the most complete submission to God and to Jesus Christ. She may not lawfully add one truth to the teaching of Christ. Neither may she take away a single one. She depends upon God with an absolute dependence which extends to the smallest details. Further, by the will of Christ she is charged with a certain mission. Christ confers this mission upon her in virtue of His supreme authority, and it necessarily carries with it a share in His supreme authority over every subordinate authority.

S: Would you kindly explain this mission of the Church?

T: This is the position in which our Lord has placed His Church. He has said to her, “Go and teach all nations ... I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” These words explain the intentions of Jesus Christ. The divine Master wants His Church to be in the world the instrument for the salvation of souls. This is so much His desire that to the Church alone, to the exclusion of all other organizations, he has entrusted the care of guiding souls to their final supernatural beatitude. It is certainly His will that His Church should fulfil in the world the office of an organism necessary for the salvation of the world.

S:   But in that case the Church would be as necessary as Christ Himself and that cannot be admitted.

T:   It may quite well be admitted that the Church is as necessary as Christ if Christ wishes it to be so. Now Christ commands His Church to teach the nations and to administer the sacraments. It might better be said that Jesus Christ has decided that, through the Church, He should Himself be the Way, the Truth and the Life for every man and for every society.

Throughout his whole life man has Jesus Christ as his King: he has the clear and definite command to obey the Church whenever she speaks in the name of Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life. But Christ is all this, not to the individual alone, but to every society. Every society then must obey the Church as Christ Himself, for the Church is commissioned to explain His mind and will just as much to men gathered in societies as to the individual.

S: On that reasoning, then, the Church should be called Queen and the title of King passes to the Pope.

T: Undoubtedly. The Church has neither above her nor beside her anyone who can enlighten, teach, or guide her but God the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is truly King, because He exercises authority over individuals, societies and all other authorities, in like manner the Church is Queen because she must teach men, themselves wielding authority, their duties. She truly rules, therefore she is Queen.

By the same right and for the same reasons the Pope is truly King.

S: These are surely weighty consequences flowing from these truths.

T: The first result is that Christ and His Church are obliged to intervene throughout the whole social order. Concerning every social duty, whatever it may be, the mission is divinely imposed upon them to enlighten nations and communities. This is taught by the Holy See in a letter to the Archbishop of Tours:—

“In the midst of the present upheavals, men must be taught once more that the Church, by reason of her divine institution, is the only Ark of Salvation for the human race. Built by the Son of God upon Peter and his successors, she is not only the guardian of revelation but also the necessary bulwark of the natural law. Therefore, Monseigneur, it is more opportune than ever to teach, as you are doing, that the truth which sets man free, whether individually or socially, is supernatural truth in all its fullness and its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise, that truth, in short, in its fullness which Jesus Christ came to bring into the world, that truth of which He has confided the safeguarding and the teaching to Peter and to His Church” (Letter of March 16th, 1917, published in the Semaine Religieuse de Tours).

The second consequence, in complete conformity with the first, is that Christ and the Church are a necessity for the whole social fabric. If they were not necessary, God would not have imposed them on the world as the means of salvation. If they have a mission to the nations incumbent upon them, the nations have a corresponding obligation to have recourse to them.

S: In that case the Church has a mission not only to souls but also to societies. But does not that seem an abuse of her position?

T: The Church and the Pope have to carry out a divinely imposed office, not only for individual souls but also for societies. In the first place, to the Church alone on earth is confided the deposit, not only of revealed truths, but also of moral truths in the natural order. No society can survive without the existence and practice of this moral law. It belongs then to the Church to teach those basic truths which alone can save the world as a whole and each country individually. It belongs to the Church and to the Church alone to interpret with authority the laws of natural justice which should govern the mutual relation of peoples. Everything shows this to be the case. The Church has to guide the nations to their last end. In this world, nations live normally only in a state of society. To the Church then it belongs to bring them to their end through that social state in which it is God’s will they should live. It is this basic truth of the final destiny which God wills for man, and which man ought to will for himself, which lights up all these great questions. It is not surprising that contempt of this truth and of this law brings with it God’s punishments. Is not the powerlessness of governments, in spite of all their efforts to bring about the peace of nations, a real punishment?

God, the Church and the Pope are set aside. The world wants to do without them. The consequence of this criminal neglect is fatal: man wants to do without God, and God leaves him to himself. Chaos is the inevitable ending.

S: It would seem, then, that, in spite of everything, we must impress upon men the dependence upon God of all human society, both in regard to God Himself, His Christ, and the mission of His Church?

T: Assuredly. It is commonly said “Of two evils choose the less.” Now it is certain that the evil arising from the silence of those whose mission it is to teach is greater and more pernicious than any other evil. Jesus Christ has spoken clearly and definitely for such circumstances as these: if, to plant His truth in the world, we have to undergo suffering and persecution, we must be ready to do so. Martyrdom must be faced rather than the abandonment and denial of truths necessary for salvation.

Chapter VII

A Fundamental Error of Our Day

Student: We have touched on many truths not always admitted in our days. There exists widespread misunderstanding of these basic doctrines.

Teacher: Unquestionably the most pernicious error, and at the same time the hardest to overcome, is the view that there neither is nor can be, for the individual or for society, any binding, that is, any objective truth. Thus, neither in theory nor in practice is there any such thing as either truth or error. The strictly logical consequence is that there is neither good nor evil, neither right nor wrong, neither justice nor injustice. Rights are granted to error and truth, to good and to evil, as if the claims of both were equal.

S: That is not so clear. Would you explain what you mean by rights being granted to error?

T: All official social organisms, and especially and particularly national constitutions, have adopted as their practical foundation the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. The rights of man are absolute: he is master. Everything, even truth, depends upon him and is made by him.

S: Quite so, but what meaning do you attribute to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, considered from the point of view of modern social ideas?

T: It is very simple: formerly, God was the center, the origin and end of all things, both for the social organism and for the individual. At the root of national constitutions was to be found, as the nature of God’s rights undoubtedly demands, the recognition of God, of Christ and of the Church’s mission. With one blow God’s rights have been suppressed, so that wherever God was Ruler and reigned as such. He has been replaced by man, whose ideas and will take the place of God’s ideas, of divine truth, of the will and of the Law of God.

S: How exactly do you find these theories offered to the world?

T: In the guise of those false affirmations concerning liberty upon which the constitutions of all countries are based, as upon sacred and inviolable principles. These are: freedom of conscience, freedom of teaching, freedom of the press, freedom of association and freedom of worship. This freedom is moderated by law, which law is the expression of the general will.

S: “Freedom”: you use a very ambiguous word! What is the exact meaning of this freedom? Does it not mean that man must be absolutely free to teach what is true and to do what is right?

T: It might be understood in this sense, but, unfortunately, this is not the meaning actually given to it. Modern liberalism has understood and applied these great principles quite differently. They mean this, in point of fact, that man is free to live as he likes and to teach what he will. He may write and publish whatever he pleases, he may join in associations for a good end or for a bad. Finally, every man is free to worship whom he will: God, Christ, Mohammed—Satan if he chooses.

S: I know, but what is the connection between these modern liberties and the fundamental error pointed out above?

T: For the societies and nations of today and for men formed according to the principles of ‘89’, truth no longer exists—there remains only man—that is to say, the thought, and the will of man. Each man has the definite right to conceive and cherish whatever thoughts he chooses and to direct his life by them. This clearly proves that the only reality which exists for man and of which he ought to take account, is his own thought as conceived and molded by himself. Outside himself truth is non-existent. It follows from this that each one has a perfect right to teach what he likes in speech or writing. For the same reason the law itself by which countries are governed is of value, not according to the degree in which it expresses the divine truth and will, but according to the degree in which it expresses the general will, as made known by the election and by votes. In short, modern law does not recognize or profess any truth: it bows down before human thought alone.

S: You would seem to attribute the Declaration of the Rights of Man a very far-reaching influence on modern mentality and on the errors of today.

T: Undoubtedly. If in virtue of a right, man may think what he chooses, he may, in virtue of the same right—and this is particularly serious—choose whatever he wants and act on his own ideas. For him there exists only himself and the “rights” of deified man, independent of all authority and all truth. This doctrine lends authority to all manner of errors in all departments. In philosophy, theology, politics, economic and social questions, human thought and fancy are to predominate and to serve as guides. But what gives exceptional weight and importance to this doctrine is that every “right” demanded by the Declaration of ‘89 is held to be due to man in strict justice, and must be officially recognized and proclaimed as so due. Every thought, every word, every action based on these “rights” is of necessity legitimate.

S.   But the Declaration of the Rights of Man surely puts some limit to the licentiousness of men’s actions?

T.   According to the principles of ‘89’ the “rights” of man are limited by the “rights” of his fellow-man. Thus my “right” to seize on another’s goods is limited by my neighbor’s “right” to his property. My “right” to kill is limited by my neighbor’s “right” to live. All these limits are consecrated and are given binding force by law.

Anyone can see how illogical they are, for if on principle my “rights” are absolute, no one can lay down any sort of limit to them. Whatever restrictions the law lays down, the fundamental dogma of man’s unrestrained liberty and unrestricted “rights” will always prevail against the law. Already we can see in this the license allowed to every form of doctrine and teaching. Under cover of the “Rights of Man” the most pernicious and monstrous errors may be introduced into all social organisms, and claim as a right the protection of the authorities, whose mission it is to protect, not truth but human thought.

S: I am afraid that you contradict all admitted ideas and sap the principles on which modern law is based.

T: Certainly. We thereby reject all the so-called modern principles; and in the matter of modern law I cannot give you a better description of it than the one given by Pope Leo XIII in his splendid Encyclical Immortale Dei.

“Amongst those principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more or less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.

“The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there was no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God, or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a state becomes nothing but a multitude, which is its own master and ruler. And since the populace is declared to contain within itself the source of all rights and of all power, it follows that the state does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so long as public order is not disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

“And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that everyone is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one’s conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that everyone has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.”

In short, according to Leo XIII, the principles of modern law are the following:

1. All power and all authority proceed from man; this is the first thing that follows from the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

2. This power finds expression in the acceptance and practice of the most complete liberty. If all rights belong to man he cannot submit to constraint or obligation.

3. As the rights of one man may conflict with the rights of another, modern law lays down a restriction in the use of absolute liberty: my right is limited by the rights of others. However illogical, this arrangement is necessary to the avoidance of conflicts and abuses that would otherwise be inevitable. For all organized society there must be legislation. This legislation will derive, not from God, or Christ, or the Eternal Law, but from the general will of the men belonging to a certain community. Individuals send to Parliament their representatives, charged with the expression of their will.

Legislation is nothing else but the expression of the will of the masses. It is, therefore, the resultant of the rights of man.

We must lay stress on this main point the common will, having nothing to consider beyond itself, may impose laws which are evil and contrary to justice. These laws then become “right” by the very fact that they are law—that is to say the expression of the common will.[1]

S: Quite clearly there is a fundamental difference between modern law and Catholic law based on God’s authority?

T: You are right: the difference is fundamental. Modern law is based on man. Catholic law is based on God. Catholic law looks at things from the angle of man’s supreme and last end—that is to say, God in three divine persons; modern law from that of man as his own self-sufficing end. Catholic law begins by taking account of the dependence upon God of every created thing, and especially of every community and every state. Modern law bases that union of wills, on which a community is founded, merely on the will of each of the component individuals, independent of the divine will. Catholic law is the establishing of the reign of God by His own divine right over the individual and over society. Modern law is the practical negation of Catholic truth and of all divine truth. It is the official establishment, sanctioned by law, of laicism, atheism, and all other errors. In short., Catholic law is justice; it is the power and authority which spring from justice put at the service of truth, which alone can save men and nations.

Modern law is the authority and power of justice put at the service of man to degrade legally—and, therefore, it is thought, legitimately—intelligence and wills, communities and societies to the level of deified man, that is to say, of man considered as the beginning and the end of all things. Compare the constitutions of nations proceeding from modern principles, with those proceeding from Catholic principles, and you will get some slight idea of the disasters produced by modern law.[2]

S: Without embracing this concept of modern law, perhaps a good Catholic can effect a compromise. Is there not a form of liberalism which establishes a quite legitimate distinction in these matters?

T: There are various kinds of liberalism of which we cannot here speak at length. We shall confine ourselves to the substance of the doctrine, which shows itself under two different aspects. First, there is that liberalism which attributes the same rights to error and sin as to truth and goodness. This is, as we have said, the beginning of all sorts of disorders. In the words quoted, Leo XIII rightly stigmatizes this liberalism as impious and heretical. There is also a more modified liberalism which, by a strange aberration, assumes the name of Catholic liberalism. In its results it is no less harmful than the other. Without affirming that error and evil have rights, this liberalism does not state that they have not. It decides, on the contrary, that it is in conformity with the spirit of tolerance and of Christian charity to live side by side with modern errors and those who profess them, as if these errors had rights. According to this view everyone has his own opinions and has a right to them and no one must be interfered with on account of his opinions and ideas, no matter how erroneous and subversive they may be. This is in practice to place error and truth, good and evil, on an equal footing. The results of this teaching are to the last degree unfortunate, for it asserts that not only those who profess a certain doctrine are to be treated with respect, but also the doctrine itself which is condemned by God.

S: But after all is it not better to act thus in the interests of peace and good citizenship?

T: There are two conclusive reasons for not conforming to the ideas of that liberalism which is called Catholic. The first reason is that by this liberalism God and Jesus Christ are deprived of their glory in the social order, which ought to be impregnated with God and with His Christ. Because of this attitude of “Catholic” liberalism God will never be known, loved and glorified, as He ought to be. The second reason is the danger which people run of losing their souls in a social order formed upon the principles of “Catholic” liberalism. Catholicism is necessarily absorbing and educative, and if it does not absorb it cannot educate according to the spirit of Christ. This liberalism forms groups, of which the atmosphere becomes fatally non-Catholic and even atheistic. In this way the liberalism which is called Catholic contributes to the loss of an incalculable number of souls.

S: But the Pope speaks of the ravages caused by “laicism.” Why proceed to blame “liberalism” for these?

T: That is just where you make the mistake, my friend. It is beyond denial that laicism has gained its footing in the social order because of so-called liberal principles. Whatever be the precise meaning attached to the-word “laicism,” it is clear that the doctrine it upholds sets man in the place of God. Man must reign where God alone has authority. Now all theories of this sort are traceable to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and to the liberty it accords man towards everything and against everything—especially against God.

Laicism is the logical conclusion of liberalism. Liberalism is its strongest support in its justification of every rebellion against the supreme being.

[1]  “Democracy, as Rousseau understands it, the religious myth of democracy is something very different from the legitimate democratic form of government. …The legitimate form of government, as understood by Aristotle and St. Thomas and exemplified in the ancient Swiss democracy, is considered by the Church and philosophy as one of the possible forms of government (de jure). …The democracy of Rousseau forms one with the ‘dogma’ of the Sovereign People, perpetual and exclusive legitimate depositary of Sovereignty. This ‘dogma,’ together with those of the Will of the People and of Law as the expression of Number leads on to the error of political pantheism (Multitude-God).” Jacques Maritain in Primauté du Spirituel, pp. 207, 208.

[2]  In his Encyclical Letter Libertas Praestantissimum, Pope Leo XIII describes liberalism as follows: The form, however, of sin is manifold; for in more ways and degrees than one can the will depart from the obedience which is due to God or to those who share the divine power.

“For, to reject the supreme authority of God and to cast off all obedience to Him in public matters, or even in private and domestic affairs, is the greatest perversion of liberty and the worst kind of liberalism; and what We have said must be understood to apply to this alone in its fullest sense.

“Next comes the system of those who admit indeed the duty of submitting to God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, inasmuch as all nature is dependent on His Will, but who boldly reject all laws of faith and morals which are above natural reason, but are revealed by the authority of God; or who at least impudently assert that there is no reason why regard should be paid to these laws, at any rate publicly, by the State. How mistaken these men also are, and how inconsistent, we have seen above. From this teaching, as from its source and principle, flows that fatal principle of the separation of the Church and State; whereas it is, on the contrary, clear that the two powers, though dissimilar in functions and unequal in degree, ought, nevertheless, to live in concord, by harmony in their action, and the faithful discharge of their respective duties.

“But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs and laws, the offices of State, and the education of the Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei, are of great avail; for by those arguments it is proved that, by a divine provision, all the rights which essentially belong to a society that is legitimate, supreme and perfect, in all its parts, exist in the Church.

“Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think, nevertheless, that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modem system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice: in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has entrusted these great and sacred matters to the care of the Church, she can never be so unfaithful to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.”

Chapter VIII

Inalienable Rights of Truth and Goodness

Student: Are truth and goodness exclusive in that they alone have rights?

Teacher: They are, and that for reasons based on philosophical and theological principles. First, in regard of philosophy. Nothingness can have no rights, since it has no existence. It is impossible for a thing which does not exist to have any rights. Therefore, to attribute rights to a nonexistent entity is an injustice. But what are you doing if you attribute rights to error except attributing them to a nonexistent entity? It is enough to consider what truth and error are in order to understand this. Truth is found in the intellect in the measure in which the intellect is in exact conformity with reality. When the intellect has an idea which is not in conformity with reality, then we have error. But what is really happening in such a case? I have in my mind the idea of something as if this thing formed part of the order of being. I attribute to it rights in my mind, as if it were portion of the divine scheme of things. But it is not so in reality. In point of fact it is a baseless creation of my own mind. How can I take as the foundation of my life and of my actions a “reality” which is no reality? What can be the outcome of such an aberration? Precisely what happens in the case of any structure raised without foundation. If I take as a basis for my life and action an idea of my own to which nothing real or objective corresponds, the whole intellectual and social edifice I raise on that basis is of necessity bound to crumble. There can be no other solid foundation for action and for life than an objective reality. This then is why truth alone has the right to exist in the individual and in the social order. From no point of view can error claim this right. When it gets a footing in a mind or among the multitude, it usurps rights not belonging to it, it is unjust. Evil is the privation of the being and goodness due to a thing. Now error is the specific evil of the intelligence, the privation of the grasp of the order of the world which the intelligence is meant to have. It is a malady to be cured, a disease to be healed, a cancer to be eradicated, not a perfection to be extolled and proclaimed worthy of respect.

S: That is certainly a cogent statement. I should be glad if some of my friends could hear their so-called reasoning thus exploded. May I ask what are the theological principles underlying your assertion?

T: Theologically I base it on the revelation given to the world by Jesus Christ. Our Lord came down to restore the divine life of grace to the human race and to each individual in it. For this end He revealed truth to the world. This truth belongs to Him in virtue of His divine right and also in virtue of His work of redemption. If this truth belongs to Him and is given to the world by Him in a well-defined sense and for a very definite purpose, then to ruin or lessen it is to commit an injustice. It is to sacrifice the rights of Jesus Christ.

S: There would then be no place for anything except truth. But is the case so easily solved? Is there not the famous distinction between the “thesis” and the “hypothesis” or between the ideal and the actual condition of affairs?

T: Certainly there is no place for anything but truth. As to the distinction between the “thesis” and the “hypothesis,” it needs careful understanding. It is an undoubted fact that the use made of this distinction has caused the loss of many souls.

S: But I should have said that the Church herself favored this distinction.

T: Not at all. It is a subtlety invented by certain theologians. It is used to quiet one’s conscience and get out of a difficulty.

S: How interesting! Would you explain the origin of the distinction and the use that is made of it?

T: By the ideal condition, or the “thesis,” is meant the position given to truth and goodness according to their full rights. Thus, in the ideal condition, the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ and the Church, occupy among countries and nations the place which belongs to them by right. This means practically living under the reign of Christ and of His Church. Besides this ideal situation, there is the actual situation. In point of fact, Christ does not exercise authority over human society, in fact, truth and goodness do not enjoy their rightful prerogative. More than this, the countries of the world are corrupt. Their corruption is such that it is impossible in practice at this moment to give to the true and the good that which is merely their strict right. This is called the actual condition of affairs, the state of the “hypothesis,” the state in which we find ourselves in face of the power—and often the organized power—of the enemies of Christ and of His Church. What is to be done in this case? No one can betray truth and goodness; no one can deny God or the Church, but under existent conditions certain situations must be tolerated which cannot be immediately altered. But it must be always noted that this tolerance is merely tolerance and not approval. In such a case everyone should in his heart have the earnest resolve to obtain their full rights for truth and goodness. Moreover, the liberty accorded to every man must be used to do good and especially to spread everywhere the principles of truth, and thus, little by little to get back to the ideal condition of affairs.

S: Am I to understand that you think great harm has been done by having recourse to this distinction?

T: Many Catholics have used this distinction as a means of shirking the duties of the apostolate. They say simply “we are in the state of ‘hypothesis,’ “and they do nothing to get back to the “thesis,” the ideal state. This is the first evil effect produced by this distinction, and there is another that springs from the first—that this distinction, by quieting and sending to sleep the consciences of those who should be militant Catholics, creates an atmosphere of inaction and sometimes of discouragement in social matters. Becoming accustomed to breathing this atmosphere, people cease to notice the poison it carries and they absorb this poison unconsciously. There is no way out of it, we have to get accustomed to putting in practice our Lord’s words, “Yes, yes; no, no.” The instructions of the divine Master can be realized only by a loyal, frank and complete adherence to the principles of truth—the only principles that can direct society towards God. We must repeat here what we said above: Whenever and wherever the distinction between the ideal and the actual condition of affairs lessens the progressive and educative action of the Church among the nations, it is causing her to fail partially in her mission: not only are souls not sanctified, but they become deadened and in the end become practically indifferent.

S.   May I put one difficulty? While we are in the state actually existing today, you tolerate the existence of error: in the ideal state you would no longer tolerate it, and we should be in danger of seeing everywhere spring up under the protection of the Sovereign Lordship of God and of Christ a state of tyranny.

T.   Unbelievers do bring forward this difficulty. It may be put in this way: when you are in power you are exorbitant in your demands and we may expect any treatment at your hands. When you are not in power you demand the freedom you refuse to others. To judge this question sanely we must examine it in the light of the great realities of life. These realities are—that man is in the world to save his soul and that he stands before the tremendous alternative of eternal bliss or eternal damnation. There is no middle course. Now we know what God demands: to be saved man must die in the state of grace. There is no greater or more real cruelty than to make it easy for a man to lose his soul; there is no higher charity than to help him to win eternal happiness. Now the modern constitutions of nations which permit and make holy every perversion of the mind and heart give every facility to people to damn themselves. All this makes it possible to answer the difficulty in a few words:

1. Certainly if we were in power we should leave no stone unturned to prevent the loss of a single soul.

2. We should remember that there is a difference between the social and the individual order. In the strictly individual order we should not violate conscience. If, in spite of us and in spite of everything, a man wants to lose his soul, it is his own business. Consequently, if anyone persisted in refusing obedience to Christ and to the Church we should leave him to his conscience, always provided he caused no scandal—for obviously we could not allow the unbelief of an individual to be detrimental to the common good of a society or of a country or hinder the salvation of even an individual soul. Therefore,

3. We should deprive error and evil of the possibility of propagating themselves. That is the sense in which we should eliminate false principles concerning liberty and freedom from the codes and the constitutions of the nations.

Chapter IX

The Sin of Liberalism:

The Sin of Europe and of the World

Student: For the reasons already put forward, liberalism would seem to be a sin?

Teacher: It is. In the individual we must take account of good intentions, of lack of light, and of surroundings which lessen responsibility, but considered in itself, liberalism is a sin of the mind.

S: Kindly explain to me in what sense you understand this sin of the mind.

T: Remember what was said in reply to the tenth question of the second chapter: The sin there pointed out is a sin of the mind, for it entails an injustice and a supreme insult to God—this is the sin of liberalism. In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and in the liberties that flow from it, man has put himself in the place of God.

Let us see how things have worked out. According to modern principles and modern law, man ought to be, and may in fact be, in the place where God—simply because He is God—has alone the right to be. By the very nature of things, He, the Creator and absolute Master, is the God of the individual conscience, the God of society, of nations and of the whole universe. He is suppressed, and in His place the human mind has set up man and man’s ideas. Thus man is substituted for God, that is to say, deified, and becomes absolute and arbitrary master of his destiny—personal, domestic and social, national, international and world wide.

Man is, and has proclaimed himself master. If in his wisdom, he judges it opportune as an individual to submit to what he believes to be “God,” “Christ,” or “the Church,” he will not be interfered with, because he is master of his own conscience.[1] But the introduction of this God and of His Church into the state or the social order will not be tolerated by him.

As man has been officially substituted for God, anyone who desires to give God His true position becomes the enemy of man, who is master of the universe and of the social order. Of necessity God and the Church become usurpers. Every effort made by the Church to accomplish her mission in the social order is regarded as an attempt at clerical domination over society. General and universal secularization necessarily follow. The individual is secularized, and is considered as enjoying only a human dignity, made up of the natural human principles of humanity, justice, goodness, etc. Every social institution must be secularized—states, the constitutions of nations and their legislation, governments, parliaments, senates, every official organism, public institutions and even private ones, having any contact with official organisms, must bear upon them the imprint of man alone.

All traces of the supernatural are blotted out. The supernatural order must be considered as non-existent. If the Church survives owing to the desires of individuals, she must take her place, even in the most favorable conditions, as a private society, with no public rights. She can only enjoy from the social standpoint the rights and privileges which man thinks well to bestow on her. A government composed of Catholics may be favorable to her, but this favor depends necessarily on man, who has the right to refuse it or concede it at his good pleasure.

This is the crowning injustice, for thus the supreme being is deprived of His absolute right; it is the supreme insult, because, after having been unjustly despoiled. He is declared a usurper.

S: How do modern liberties issue in this fatal conclusion?

T: We have said that for the modern man the sole existent truth is man’s thought. From this fact, every state or society and state built upon the principles of ‘89’ is, by its very constitution, incapable of admitting or proclaiming any truth, of recognizing or professing any form of worship. It is the logical consequence of the “great modern liberties.” Let us explain, taking as an example freedom of instruction. One master teaches such propositions as these: “God exists,” “Jesus Christ is God,” “the Catholic Church is a divine work.” In virtue of its principles the state must allow him to continue. But if another master teaches doctrines contradicting the former: “God does not exist,” “Jesus Christ did not exist, or suffered from hallucination,” “the Church is a great conspiracy,” in virtue of the same principles, the state must let him go on. That is to say, the state does not hold any of these doctrines and must not recognize, any of them as true. It must protect both by the same constitutional rights and to the same degree.

The only thing it receives as true is that every person is free to teach. In strict logic it follows that the modern state is necessarily atheistic and freethinking, because the constitutions of states are freethinking, atheistic, or, more accurately, non-true, “without truth,” which means in practice against truth and against God.

When the modern state is faced by an objective existent truth, such as the primary truth—God exists, what must be its attitude, if it is not to deny its principles? It must not know that in the proposition “God exists,” truth is found. It must not adhere thereto. To act otherwise would be to express knowledge of truth, and the will to accept it. The modern state cannot do either the one or the other: It must have the same attitude towards the two doctrines “God exists,” “God does not exist.” Socially the modern state must not know if there is such a thing as truth. It must oppose the introduction of any teaching as true. For to introduce anything as truth would be to make truth superior to the state and the constitutions of a country—and this can never be.

States and national constitutions cannot but be opposed to the action of truth as long as they remain what they are, i.e., non-true, atheistic, opposed to every principle that does not leave them master and arbiter of their own destiny, and thus in practice opposed to God, to Christ and to the Church.

On the other hand, every idea, in so far as it is man’s idea, has a right to be taught and has the support of the state for an imperative reason. The state knows only man. Human thought and all ideas are the product of the human mind. In teaching them nothing superior to man is introduced into society.

The ideas “God exists,” “the Catholic Church is divine,” have a right to be taught, not because they are the expression of objective truth, but because certain subjects of the state consider these ideas to be good and to be of private or public utility. The ideas “God does not exist,” “the Catholic Church is a mass of trickery,” have exactly the same right to be taught.

Logically it must be the same thing with the teaching of theft, murder, immorality, assassination. A legislation, which, in fact, contradicts the principles of the state, condemns and executes the unfortunate men who put these things into practice, but does not forbid doctrines which lead directly to them. In short, the state teaches through its subjects the ideas of its subjects. This must be the case, since the state knows only man and whatever is merely human.

Thus modern principles and modern jurisprudence inevitably issue in supreme injustice towards God and insult Him in the most abominable fashion.[2]

This is how Leo XIII expresses himself in his letter to the Archbishop of Bogota (Letter of 6th April, 1900)— “When the question arises of how to act in public affairs, Catholics are solicited in opposite directions by contrary interests and are disturbed by violent disputes, which generally arise from differences in the interpretation of Catholic doctrine on the subject of liberalism. …

“The Sovereign Pontiff teaches that the main principle and foundation of liberalism is the rejection of the divine law: what naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes boundless license.[3] This is the first and most hurtful degree of liberalism. On the one hand, it rejects and completely destroys all authority and divine law, whether natural or supernatural, on the other hand it declares that the constitution of society depends on the will of individuals, and that sovereign authority proceeds from the masses as from its first source.”

S: I can clearly see that liberalism is a gross injustice towards God. But am I correct in saying that there is also in the attitude of liberalism a certain injustice towards man?

T: To give a complete answer, it would be necessary to examine in detail the doctrine of the Redemption, point out anew the rights of Jesus Christ over every intellect and every will, and show how, in usurping these undeniable divine rights, liberalism sins against Christ. But this injustice exists and shows itself in another way. Christ, having by His Redemption paid the price of man’s freedom and acquired undeniable rights over man, these rights in Christ become the rights of man himself. To explain this: a certain thing is necessary for my salvation and sanctification; for example, it is necessary for my sanctification that Christ should be in theory and practice proclaimed King of the universe and King of souls. Accordingly, I have the right, because Christ has won it for me, that society should be placed under His direction. I have the right in Christ and by Christ that society should be Christian and Catholic—that states should be Catholic. As Louis Veuillot said in a famous phrase, “The nations have a right to Jesus Christ.” This right is all the more to be respected, because it belongs to man only in the measure in which Christ has Himself bestowed it on him.

S: What is the attitude of mind created in practice by principles of liberalism?

T: The direct result of liberalism is anarchy or tyranny. That anarchy should spring from liberalism, as a consequence flows from its proper principle, is plain enough. Let us repeat it for the hundredth time—according to modern constitutions, everyone has the right to think as he pleases and to live as he thinks. But if his thought is the guide of conduct for each one, without the restraints of objective truth, it is obvious that we are tending to a complete licentiousness of mind and of action. Moreover, the inevitable outcome of liberalism is tyranny. This has been made clear more than once: to restrain all the excesses of mind, heart and will, recourse has been had to the general will, and laws have had to be made. Law alone is held to create justice and right, but if law represents the general will of the people and this people is directed by a will that is evil, atheistic, impious, immoral, what can be expected except tyranny? Governments rule in the name of the people, and in the name of the people the most incredible and fantastic injustices are imposed. Such are the consequences of liberalism. Anarchy and Bolshevism are its lineal descendants. Liberalism undermines the foundations of order in every society.

S: In a word, then, modern principles of liberty have a profoundly destructive influence.

T: Leo XIII expresses one consequence of liberalism as follows: “The number of souls lost (by reason of the conditions produced among the nations by the principles of modern law) is incalculable” (Letter, Sapientiae Christianae, on The Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens, January 10th, 1890).[4] Look, for one example, at the evil resulting from the freedom of the press. How many souls are corrupted by reading bad newspapers and the immoral and impious publications which abound in every country? How many souls are eternally lost on account of the protection by which all literary, scientific and other productions are legally surrounded? How many souls at this moment damned would not be so, if this accursed freedom of the press did not exist? It is the same with freedom of teaching. What is it that allows the promoters of disorder to teach their doctrines and to corrupt minds except this absolute liberty which is so benevolently granted to them?

S: Does not what you have just said involve a fresh condemnation of the distinction between the “thesis” and the “hypothesis,” the ideal and the actual state of things?

T: It certainly does. To become fully aware of the harm done by so-called Catholic liberalism, we have to look at it from the point of view explained above. Quieting consciences and putting them to sleep does not prevent evil from flourishing, but it does prevent good from being done.

S: I see then that the words liberty and freedom are very often wrongly used in our day?

T: Yes. Just as the overthrow of right order in the sixteenth century was styled ‘reform’ and the revolt against God in 1789 was termed ‘emancipation’ and ‘progress’, so now the abuse of liberty is termed exercise of freedom. Liberty is the power of adopting the means which lead to man’s happiness, that is, the power of doing in unimpeded fashion what he ought to do. It cannot be too often insisted upon that it is in doing what he ought to do that man lives as a man and this attains his good. Man is free in proportion to his power to exercise his selective capacity unhampered either by revolts within himself or by obstacles in his surroundings provocative of these revolts. Freedom does not mean absence of restrictions, but the absence of restrictions that are unsuited to the nature of man.

[1]  A circular of the Marxian communists quoted by Leon de Poncins in his splendid work The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, p. 144, however, shows that deified man, as one would logically expect him to do, will aim at eliminating all worship of other gods. The worship of the true God must not be tolerated. The circular runs as follows: “In our decrees, it is definitely proclaimed that religion is a question for the private individual; but whilst opportunists tended to see in these words the meaning that the state would adopt the policy of folded arms, the Marxian revolutionary recognizes the duty of the state to lead a most resolute struggle against religion by means of ideological influences on the proletarian masses.”

[2]  The legislation of the recently established Spanish Republic is an excellent illustration of the truth of these statements.

[3]  Encyclical Letter Libertas, on Human Liberty, quoted in letter to the Archbishop of Bogota. The translation of this Encyclical is given as found in Benziger’s Edition. The rest of the letter to the Archbishop has been translated from the original, as found in the Collection of La Bonne Presse, Paris.

[4]  The translation of this passage runs as follows in Benziger’s edition: “For these reasons how great a multitude of men is involved in danger as to their eternal salvation surpasses belief.” In the preceding passages the Pope has exposed the situation resulting from modern principles.

Chapter X

Punishments Inflicted by God on

Countries Which Abandon Him

Student: May we truly say that God does inflict punishments in this world on sinful nations?

Teacher: It is somewhat difficult to give a clear and complete reply to this question. Catholics who are affected with liberalism do not accept the theory of divinely inflicted punishment on sinful countries.

S: But one often hears that societies must expiate their sins in this world. What foundation is there for this statement?

T: The theory on which this affirmation is based is as follows: individuals who have committed sins may expiate them in this world. If they do not, they will expiate them in the next. Thus individuals will be punished according to the degree of their guilt, either in purgatory, where they will make reparation, or in hell, where they will undergo everlasting punishment. Societies, as such, do not enter into the next world. In so far as they have been guilty of sin they can be punished only in this world. Now their sin is a sin against justice which demands reparation. It follows, therefore, that countries which have abandoned God must make expiation and reparation here below, and it pertains to the wisdom of God to inflict on them such punishments as are in conformity with His eternal designs.

S: I can understand that societies must expiate their evil-doings, but it is not so clear to me what you mean by punishments in conformity with the eternal designs of God?

T: I mean that nations and indeed all forms of society owe to God in strict justice reparation and expiation, in so far as they are guilty. The extent of such expiation, more particularly when it is to be brought about by divine punishment, is left to the wisdom and the decrees of God. For God is not obliged to inflict social punishment because such punishment has been deserved. Very often—we may even say always—God’s action in regard to communities is motived by His desire to save souls, and follows, therefore, the way of mercy and love. In any social punishment prepared, willed and carried out by Him we always find His will to save souls. In inflicting social punishment God wishes to reach souls and bring them back to Himself. This is why it is difficult for us to trace the eternal plan in the punishments inflicted by God on erring nations. We must simply hold that God can punish, that He does in fact punish, and that to avoid His punishments the entire social order must subject itself to Him.

S: What you say seems to me just. Can you quote doctrinal statements formulated by the authorities of the Church in confirmation of your statement?

T: Popes and Bishops have spoken very clearly and without hesitation.

In his first Encyclical Pope Pius XI wrote: “Long before the European war broke out, the chief and efficient cause of all those evils operated through the fault of individuals, as of states, a cause which the horror itself of war ought to have set aside and certainly suppressed, if only men had understood the true significance of such formidable events. …Because of this unhappy separation from God and Jesus Christ, man has fallen from his happy state into this morass of evil, and it is to the same cause is due the failure of every attempt made to repair the losses and to save what remains from amidst so much devastation. Neither God nor Jesus

Christ being recognized by the Law or by the state, and authority claiming to be derived from man alone, it has come to pass that, with the removal of the true and fundamental sanctions of the law…the very foundations of authority have been destroyed.[1]

In his Consistorial Allocution of the 24th December, 1917, Benedict XV solemnly declared “just as the disorder of the senses once hurled famous cities into a sea of fire, so in our own time the want of piety in public life and the erection of atheism into a system of so-called civilization have hurled the world into a sea of blood.”

The same Pope, in the same Allocution, stated that “the present calamities will not come to an end until the human race has returned to God.”

Leo XIII and Pius X spoke in the same way. Among Bishops Cardinal Mercier raised his voice in a pastoral letter of lasting fame. The Lesson of Events. In it he stated “public crimes will sooner or later be punished.” In the same pastoral he wrote: “Violation of the Lord’s day, abuses of the marriage law, most certainly offend God, my brethren, and justify His punishments, but for all that we cannot doubt that the chief crime which the world is expiating at this moment is the official apostasy of nations and of public opinion.”

And again: “At the present day, men, to whom has been entrusted the government of peoples, are, or show themselves, with very few exceptions, officially indifferent to God and to Christ. I make no charge against those worthy officials who, for fear of provoking worse evil, submit loyally to the unfortunate situation which is imposed on them: it is the situation itself that I have in mind, and in the name of the Gospel, in the light of the Encyclicals of the last four Popes, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X, I do not hesitate to affirm that this indifference to religion, which puts on the same level the religion of divine origin and the religions invented by men in order to include them all in the same scepticism, is the blasphemy which, far more than the sins of individuals and families, calls down on society God’s chastisements.”

S: Can we have any accurate idea as to the nature of the punishments that God inflicts on guilty nations?

T: All disasters which can bring communities to reflection serve for the accomplishment of God’s designs. War, plagues, disasters of every sort, more particularly calamities of the intellectual and moral order, can touch them and bring them back to repentance.

Our Lord speaks of scourges of this sort, in particular of the great misfortune of spiritual blindness. Of the Jews He says, “this people will not understand because it cannot understand, and cannot understand because it does not wish to understand.” We must understand these words to refer to a social punishment. Nothing is so dreadful as that man should be, as a result of his failure to understand, the cause of his own misfortunes. The Jews, as our Lord told them reproachfully, do not understand that He is the Messiah and the Son of God. Now for the Jewish nation there is only one means of salvation, to realize and to profess that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God. Nevertheless, the Jewish people remain immovable in the determination not to understand that this is so, and thus God speaks to them: “O you, formerly My chosen people, for you there is but one way of salvation, Jesus Christ. Accept Him and you are saved;” and the people reply, “I do not wish to understand that it can be so;” God replies, “Since your will is set against understanding, I accept it. You will not understand. That is the punishment I inflict upon you.” It is exactly the same with Catholic society in our day. To save the social order, and peoples, Catholics must begin by realizing that Christ alone is their salvation. Their will is set against realizing it. God accepts their obstinate will. They do not understand, they do not see and they can no longer see in Jesus Christ their only salvation. That is their punishment.

To this general truth, we may add certain others more particular in their nature. Men do not realize that the principles of modern jurisprudence and the great modern liberties which it involves must be suppressed in the social order. It is not understood that to each man must be denied liberty of opinion. No more is it realized that, whatever happens, the growth of false principles should be checked and that only Catholic truth should be favored. All this condition of things bears the sign and seal of that divine punishment which brings nations to their ruin. Leo XIII said, in 1881, “as an inevitable result of the war waged against the Church, civil society finds itself facing the most serious dangers, for since the very basis of the social order has been overturned, nations and their rulers see nothing before them but disasters and threats of disasters.”[2] The same Pope writes, “from such attacks made on the Catholic religion, serious evils have arisen for the nations in great numbers, and will continue to arise.”[3]

That, for the moment, may be considered sufficient on the great question of social punishment.

S: In fine you hold that God makes use of events, such as upheavals and social disasters, to punish countries?

T: Obviously God has recourse to all these means to make man realize that He, the infinite, the creator, has no need of man; but that, on the contrary, man has need of God. Thus what happens in the economic order can help greatly to make men realize that if a country is stricken by disaster, it is in order to make its inhabitants less attached to this world’s goods, and to teach them that all wealth comes from God and ought to serve only the cause of His love. Wealth must be used to maintain God and Jesus Christ throughout society, and must, therefore, serve to establish and promote the Kingship of Christ in the whole world.

[1]  Translation: Browne and Nolan.

[2]  8th May, 1881.

[3]  Encyclical Letter In ipso, 3rd May, 1891.

Chapter XI

Remedy For Present Evils

Student: So far we have dwelt upon the grave ills of modern society. It is a depressing spectacle this, of a world sickened by its own folly. There is surely some reasonable remedy for our troubles.

Teacher: Leo XIII gives a very definite reply to this question. He says: “Such is the secret of the problem. When an organism perishes and corrupts, it is because it has ceased to be under the action of the causes which had given it its form and constitution. To make it healthy and flourishing again it is necessary to restore it to the vivifying action of those same causes. So society, in its foolhardy effort to escape from God, has rejected the supernatural order and divine revelation; and it is thus withdrawn from the salutary efficacy of Christianity, which is manifestly the most solid guarantee of order, the strongest bond of fraternity, and the inexhaustible source of all public and private virtue. This sacrilegious divorce has resulted in bringing about the trouble which now disturbs the world. Hence it is the pale of the Church which this lost society must re-enter if it wishes to recover its well-being, its repose, and its salvation” (Apostolic Letter, 19th March, 1902, Review of His Pontificate).

Elsewhere the same Pope has developed the same idea: “From day to day it becomes more and more evident how needful it is that the principles of Christian wisdom should be ever borne in mind, and that the life, the morals, and the institutions of nations should be wholly conformed to them. From the fact of these principles having been disregarded, mischiefs so vast have accrued that no right-minded man can face the trials of the present time without grave solicitude, nor contemplate the future without serious alarm” (Encyclical Letter Sapientiae Christianae, 10th January, 1890).

S: A return to the Church is the only remedy. Quite so, but how effect this result?

T: Christ, in coming into the world, and God, in entrusting Him with His mission, had in view the salvation of peoples, and this throughout all ages. Our divine Master has said, “I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20). Now what was the state of the world at our Lord’s birth? All nations, save only the Jews, were given up to error, to irreligion, to pagan immorality, in a word, the human race was a prey to sin, and was, as it were, lost in it. Man, who owed to God adoration, love, satisfaction, and gratitude, which must be the work of prayer and divine grace, could only look forward to the punishments to be inflicted by God’s justice. What does Christ do? He wishes to make man capable of doing his duty to God worthily. Alone among creatures, the God-Man, Christ-Jesus, possesses this power in Himself. Upon Himself He takes the whole sum of the sin of the human race, for which He makes reparation, and He gives man His own power of adoring worthily, of making suitable reparation and of worthily offering prayer and thanksgiving. Jesus accepts death; Justice is satisfied and the world is saved. Nations prostrate themselves before the Crucifix. With Constantine the Cross is enthroned, Christ, as King, rules the destinies of nations. By His immolation and His sacrifice Jesus Christ saved the world. Who can rescue the world from the evils it now suffers? Only Jesus Christ, through the application, alike to nations and individuals, of the merits of His Passion and death, can save the universe from its present great evils.

S: That I can well understand, since Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. What, however, I do not precisely grasp is the manner in which the merits of our Savior’s passion are applied both to individuals and to nations?

T: On this point we must understand and put into practice the significant words of St. Paul, “I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His Body, which is the Church” (Col. 1:24). These words of the great apostle are full of import.

To say that the Passion of Jesus Christ is in any way defective would be a lamentable error. Jesus Christ our Lord has given full and complete satisfaction for all men, past, present and to come. He was not satisfied with taking on Himself the individual sins of men; He was not satisfied with bearing the burden of the great social sin which consists in the injustice and insult to God which we have described above. He truly took upon Himself the sin of the human race, the sum total of its sin. According to St. Paul’s doctrine God constituted Jesus sin—“Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin, that we might be made the justice of God in Him” (2Cor. 5:21).

Jesus Christ is Head of fallen humanity, so that He constitutes with it one mystical person. By reason of the mysterious reality of this union, the sins of the human race touched Jesus in Gethsemani and on Calvary precisely in so far as He was identified with humanity. In virtue of His union with us, because we form one body with Him, Our Lord saw Himself laden with sin in the sight of His Father. In virtue of our oneness with Him, “although the plentiful redemption of Christ abundantly forgives all our offences (cf. Col. 2:13), yet by that wonderful disposition of the divine wisdom whereby we have to fill up in our body those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, for His Body which is the Church (cf. Col. 1:24), we can, nay, we must, add our own praise and satisfaction to the praise and satisfaction which Christ gave to God in the name of sinners. It should be remembered, however, that the expiatory value of our acts depends solely upon the bloody sacrifice of Christ, a sacrifice which is renewed unceasingly in an un-bloody manner on our altars, for ‘one is the victim, one and the same is He who now offers through the ministry of His priests, the same Who offered Himself on the cross, the manner only of the offering being different’ (Council of Trent, Sess. 22, c. 2). For this reason, with the august sacrifice of the Eucharist must be united the immolation of the ministers and also of the rest of the faithful, so that they, too, may offer themselves ‘a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God’ (Rom. 12:1). Hence, St. Cyprian says that ‘the sacrifice of the Lord is not offered with its complete effect of sanctification unless our offering and our sacrifice correspond with the Passion’ (Ep. 63, n. 381)” (Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Universal Reparation to the Sacred Heart, 8th May, 1928).[1]

S: Apparently you mean that all Catholics are associated with Christ’s redemptive work?

T: This is the mystery revealed by St. Paul when he tells us that he is accomplishing for the Church a work which is linked up with the Passion of Christ Jesus that Passion undergone for the salvation of the whole world. Pius XI exposes clearly this doctrine: “Therefore, the Apostle admonishes us that, bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus’ (2Cor. 4:10), buried with Christ and planted together in the likeness of His Death (cf. Rom. 6:4–5), we should not only crucify our flesh with the vices and concupiscences (cf. Gal. 5:24), ‘flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world’ (2Pet. 1:4), but that ‘the life also of Jesus should be made manifest in our mortal flesh’ (2Cor. 4:2), and being made partakers of His eternal priesthood we should ‘offer gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (Heb. 5:1). Those whom our high priest Jesus Christ uses as His ministers, to offer to God a clean oblation in every place from the rising of the sun even to the going down’ (Mal. 1:2), are indeed partakers in that sacred priesthood, in that office of offering satisfaction and sacrifice. But not they alone; the whole body of Christians, rightly called by the Prince of the Apostles ‘a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood’ (1Pet. 2:5), must offer sacrifice for sins, both for themselves and for the whole human race, just as every priest ‘taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God’ (Heb. 5:2).

“The more perfectly our oblation and our sacrifice corresponds to the sacrifice of Christ—in other words, the more we sacrifice our self-love and our passions, and crucify our flesh with that mystical crucifixion of which the Apostle speaks—the more abundant will be the fruits of propitiation and expiation that we shall receive for ourselves and others. For a wonderful bond unites all the faithful with Christ—a bond similar to that existing between the head and the other members of the body. Likewise, that mysterious Communion of Saints, which our Catholic faith professes, not only unites individuals and nations together, but joins them to ‘the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body being compactly and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of each part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity’ (Eph. 4:15–16). This was the prayer that Jesus Christ the Mediator between God and men, made to His Father on the eve of His Death ‘I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one’ (Jn. 17:23). In like manner, then, as consecration professes and confirms union with Christ, so expiation, while it purifies from sin, initiates that union itself, perfects it by taking part in the sufferings of Christ and brings it to completion by the offering of sacrifice for the brethren.”

“If, then, in foreseeing the sins of the future, the soul of Jesus became sorrowful unto death, it cannot be doubted that he already felt some comfort when he foresaw our reparation, when ‘there appeared to Him an angel from heaven’ (Lk. 22:43), bearing consolation to His Heart, overcome with sorrow and anguish. Hence, even now, in a mysterious, but true, manner, we may, and should, comfort the Sacred Heart, continually wounded by the sins of ungrateful men; for Christ—as we also read in the sacred liturgy—complains by the mouth of the Psalmist that he is abandoned by his friends: ‘my heart hath expected reproach and misery. And I looked for one who would grieve together with me, but there was none; and for one that would comfort me, and I found none’ (Ps. 68:21).

“It should also be remembered that the expiatory Passion of Jesus Christ is renewed and, in a manner, continued, in His Mystical Body—the Church. To use once more the words of St. Augustine: ‘Christ suffered all that He had to suffer, and to the number of His sufferings nothing is wanting. Hence the Passion is complete; but in the Head only. There still remained the sufferings of Christ to be completed in His Body’ (Ps. 86). Jesus Christ Himself taught the same truth when to Saul, ‘as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples’ (Acts 9:5), he said ‘I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest’ (Acts 9:5). By these words He clearly meant that persecutions directed against the Church are a grievous attack upon her divine Head. Christ then, as He still suffers in His Mystical Body, rightly desires to have us as His companions in the work of expiation. In this manner He desires us to be united with Him, because, since we are ‘the Body of Christ and members of member’ (1Cor. 12:27), what the head suffers the members should suffer with it (cf. 1Cor. 12:26).

“That the necessity of expiation and reparation is especially urgent today must be evident to anyone who considers the present plight of the world, ‘seated in wickedness’ (1Jn. 5:19). From every side we hear the cry of nations whose Governments have in very truth stood up and met together against the Lord and against His Church” (cf. Ps. 2:2). (Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Universal Reparation to the Sacred Heart).

S: Such an immolation with Christ must demand a very intense spiritual life.

T: Obviously, to repair the fault committed by sinful man, it is necessary to go before God as a soul which is united to Him by grace and love. Like Jesus Christ and with Him in His sufferings and death, it must be intimately united with the three divine persons. That is why souls which wish to join in the redemptive work of our Lord must in some measure apply themselves to the practice of the spiritual and supernatural life. They must live a life of union with God and of immolation.

“We may, in a sense, apply to our own times the words of the Apostle: ‘Where sin abounded, grace did more abound’ (Rom. 5:20). For, while the perversity of mankind has greatly increased, yet, by the favor of the Holy Spirit, there is also a great increase in the number of the faithful, both men and women, who valiantly strive to make satisfaction to the divine Heart for so many sins that are committed against it, who do not fear even to offer themselves to Christ as victims. Whoever ponders with love over what we have been saying, and impresses it deeply upon his heart, will undoubtedly not only hate sin, and shun it as the greatest of evils, but will offer himself to the divine will, and use every means in his power to compensate for the offences committed against the divine majesty, by constant prayer, by voluntary mortification and by the patient acceptance of all the trials that may come upon him—in fact, by living his whole life in the spirit of reparation.

“In this way there have come into being many religious communities of men and women, whose pious ambition it is to play the part, day and night, of the angel that comforted Christ in His Agony. Besides these, there are devout associations, approved by the Holy See and endowed with indulgences, which perform suitable exercises of piety and virtue, with the object of making reparation. Add to these the practice used, not only by individuals, but by whole parishes, dioceses and cities, of making solemn act of reparation” (Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Universal Reparation to the Sacred Heart).

S: So you demand something more than action for the attainment of your goal?

T: Obviously, action is absolutely necessary, but the work of the soul united to God and immolating itself with Christ Jesus is no less indispensable. Perfection is possible only by the constant union of action and contemplation, corresponding to the twofold precept of love of God and love of our neighbor. The ideal is the mutual com-penetration of interior life and action or rather the complete predominance of the interior life, impregnating with its perfume all external activity. The harmony between action and contemplation is not meant to be the result of mutual concessions and compromises, implying a non-existent equality between them.” Thus it is evident that, when anyone passes from the contemplative to the active life, it must not be by way of detachment and suppression, but by way of addition. (IIa, IIae, Q. 182 a.I ad 3um).

[1]  Translation. Burns, Oates and Washbourne.

Chapter XII

Action

Student: Is action necessary for the restoration of social order?

Teacher: Undoubtedly, for we must not forget the words of Christ to His Apostles “Go into the whole world; teach all nations.” Christ did not say, “Stay where you are, do penance.” He said: “Go; teach,” which means to say—strive by preaching and by every means to bring the truth to souls.

S: Are there other means for spreading the truth besides preaching?

T: “Every means” you say. We see the enemies of Christ make use of other means. Every means that can serve their purpose is employed. To capture the working class they make use of all kinds of activities, political and economic associations of all sorts, as, for example, communist clubs, newspapers, lectures, classes, advertisements, pamphlets, etc.

S: Granted that we must use such means as these, on whom lies the responsibility of doing so?

T: Obviously, on the ecclesiastical authorities. It belongs to the Pope, the Bishops and the clergy to instruct and to teach.

S: Have laymen no place in this work?

T: Clearly laymen are called in strict charity to enlighten their neighbor and to labor, not only for the good of individuals, but for the restoration of society as a whole. As Leo XIII has said: “Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it. ‘All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Savior, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from Holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith’ (Const. Dei Filius). Let each one therefore bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect consequently to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors, the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play.”

Pius XI also has made innumerable appeals to the self-sacrifice of the laity. In the Encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei, the Pope writes to the Bishops, “Recall, moreover, to the minds of your faithful subjects in Christ, that—it is by promoting, under your direction and that of your clergy, the knowledge and love of Christ, they become truly worthy of the title of a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people’ (1Pet. 2:9), and that closely united with Christ and with Us, they will best succeed in bringing about a common peace amongst men, by devoting all their energies to the propagation and restoration of the Kingdom of Christ.”[1] It is to Pope Pius XI that we owe the definition, so admirable in its conciseness, of Catholic Action, namely, the “participation and collaboration of the laity with the Apostolic Hierarchy.”

It would not be possible for the Popes to set out their teaching more clearly or to express their will more emphatically. It is clear that in work which concerns them so closely as the rebuilding of the social order in Christ the laity must be the Bishops’ right arm. In the past the Church had the help of the secular arm, that is, the civil authority, for the carrying out of its work, the civil authority has withdrawn its help; therefore, until nations return once more to Christ, Catholic lay folk must help the Church and particularly must strive to secure for the Church, for Jesus Christ and for God, their rightful place in the life of this world. The apostolate of the Catholic laity is required now more than ever before, to come to the aid of and prolong the apostolate of the clergy amongst the masses, in order to bring them to Christ and maintain them faithful to Him.

S: What must be the immediate goal of our action?

T: The immediate goal must be the liberation of the intelligence from error. According to the modern point of view there is not and cannot be such a thing as truth or error. To intellects so badly contaminated we must bring back the fundamental notions of the real existence of truth and of its inviolable claims and of the injustice of error.

S: If this is so we must declare war to the death against the modern theories of liberty and legislation, theories admitted even by certain theologians.

T: As we have shown, certain Catholics, either through weakness or through ignorance, are guided solely by modern principles. To save the Catholic Faith, they argue practically that every opinion has a right to existence. Their method of apologetics would be to say to unbelievers “we respect your faith, you should respect ours.” These Catholics forget not only that reason is against them, as we have shown, but also that the Popes have authoritatively condemned principles of this sort. In his letter to the Bishop of Troyes, Pius explicitly attacks the introduction of modern principles into the French Constitution and expresses his grief in the strongest terms: “a fresh subject of anxiety, by which our heart is still more keenly afflicted, and which we confess brings upon us torment, anguish and extreme anguish, is the Twenty-second Article of the Constitution. Not only does this article allow liberty of worship and of conscience to use the very terms of the article—but it promises support and protection to this liberty, and further, to the ministers of what it calls the denominations. There is no need of lengthy discourse, speaking as we are to a Bishop such as yourself, to make you see clearly with what a mortal wound the Catholic religion in France is stricken by this article. By the very fact of the proclamation of liberty for all cults, without any distinction, truth is confounded with error, and on the same level as heretical sects, and even Jewish perfidy, is placed the Holy and Immaculate Bride of Christ, the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Furthermore, by promising favor and support to the heretical sects and their ministers, one tolerates and favors not only their persons but even their errors. This is in effect the disastrous and even deplorable heresy of which St. Augustine speaks in those terms: ‘it affirms that all heretics are on the right road and speak truth’—an absurdity so monstrous that I cannot believe that any sect really holds it.

“Our astonishment has been no less on reading the Twenty-third Article of the Constitution, which maintains and allows freedom of the press—a freedom which threatens faith and morals with the greatest perils and with certain ruin. If anyone could doubt it the experience of the past would of itself be sufficient to enlighten him. It is a fact established beyond dispute that the liberty of the press has been the principle which first degraded the morals of the nations, then corrupted and overthrew their faith, and, finally, gave rise to seditions, upheavals, revolts. One would have good reason to fear that these same disastrous results would again follow in these present times, considering the great wickedness of men, if, which may it please God to prevent, everyone was given the liberty to print whatever he liked.”[2]

In his turn Gregory XVI writes, “from this poisonous principle of indifferentism flows the false and absurd maxim, or rather madness, that one must give and guarantee to every man freedom of conscience. The way for this error, of all the most contagious, has been prepared and made level by that absolute unfettered liberty of opinion which is everywhere threatening the ruin of Church and state, and which certain men, with the utmost effrontery, dare to represent as being advantageous to religion. ‘Oh! what more fatal to the soul than liberty of error’ said St. Augustine (St. Aug., Ep. 166). As we see withdrawn from men every restraint strong enough to keep them in the paths of truth, inclined as they already are towards their ruin by a natural tendency towards evil, we say, in truth, that there is opening that profound abyss from which St., John saw a cloud of smoke rising, which obscured the sun, and beheld locusts issuing forth to lay waste the earth.

“From this comes indeed the lack of mental stability, from this the ever-increasing corruption of youth, from this the contempt amongst the people for inviolable rights, for the most holy things and the most sacred laws; from this, the most destructive of all scourges that can ravage states. For experience teaches and the most remote antiquity confirms the lesson, that to bring to destruction the richest, the most powerful, the most glorious and flourishing states, nothing more has been needed than this unbridled liberty of opinion, this license in public speech, this craze for innovations.

“With this indifferentism is linked up the liberty of the press, that most fatal and deplorable liberty, a liberty which cannot be too dreaded, but which, nevertheless, certain men dare, with much eloquence and great audacity, to ask for and to favor everywhere. We tremble, Venerable Brothers, as we consider with what monstrous doctrines, or rather with what prodigious errors, we are overwhelmed—errors propagated far and wide by an immense multitude of books, pamphlets and other writings, small indeed in volume, but of vast proportions in malice, from which issues that curse which covers the face of the earth and which brings tears to our eyes. Yet, alas! it grieves Us to find men carried away by such an excessive impudence, that they obstinately affirm that the flood of errors which is the result of liberty of the press, is sufficiently made up for by the publication of a few books printed to defend truth and religion, in the midst of this deluge of iniquity. But it is undoubtedly a crime, and a crime condemned by every form of law, to commit a certain and very great evil, in the hope that, perhaps, some good may result from it. What sane man will dare to say that it is permitted to disseminate poisons everywhere, to sell them publicly, to hawk them about—nay more, to swallow, them greedily,—under the pretext that there exists some remedy which has occasionally snatched from death those who have used them?” (Encyclical Letter Mirari Vos, 15th August, 1832.)[3]

The teachings of Pius IX are so well known that we need not insist on them here. It is sufficient to recall the Propositions condemned by the Syllabus:

Proposition 77: “At the present day it is no longer advantageous that the Catholic religion should be considered as the only religion of the state to the exclusion of all other denominations” (Allocution Nemo Vestrum, 26th July, 1855).

Proposition 78: “Accordingly it is a matter for commendation that in certain Catholic countries the law has provided that foreigners who come to live there enjoy the public exercise of their particular form of religious worship” (Allocution Acerbissimum, 27th September, 1852).

Proposition 79: “It is false to hold that the according of liberty to all religious denominations and the complete power granted to all to manifest outwardly and publicly all their thoughts and opinions, more easily bring about the corruption of morals and ideas among peoples and spread the pest of indifferentism” (Allocution Nunquam fore, 15th December, 1856).

Leo XIII has not been less definite in his teaching: “Liberty, being one of the elements of man’s perfection, should have truth and goodness for its object. But the nature of goodness and truth cannot be changed at the will of man. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than are the essences of things. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its perfection, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well spent life is the only passport to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the state is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the power of making laws, from the training of youth, from domestic society, is a grave and fatal error. A state from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already, perhaps, more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals” (Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei, November 1st, 1885).

In his Encyclical Letter Libertas on Human Liberty, June 20th 1888, Leo XIII condemns these same liberties in the following terms: “There are others, somewhat more moderate, though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the state, so that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation of Church and state. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the state providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the state should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in the government of the state take no account of these laws, abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless, in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.

“To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess ‘as he may choose’ any religion or none. But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfil, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and, therefore, religion, which (as St. Thomas says) ‘performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor’ (Summa, IIa, IIae, q. lxxxi. art. 6), rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible error would have as its consequence the gravest disaster. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the subjection of the soul to the slavery of sin.

“This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the state, clearly implies that there is no reason why the state should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the state has no duties towards God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or in its cause; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment, if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore civil society must acknowledge God as its source and author, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the state to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness namely, to treat, as it is said, the various religions alike, and to bestow upon them indiscriminately equal rights and privileges.”

S: In these conditions what is your opinion concerning elections?

T: In many cases elections serve a useful purpose. Thus, to give the Church a head, procedure is by election, and so in many instances. But here a difficulty arises from the fact that elections, which exist to provide countries and communities with law makers and legislators, may place at their head evil men, who will act so as to become public evildoers and destroyers of souls. We have sufficiently established the need of putting God and Christ His Son at the head and foundation of every social organization. Now, a country’s will to give itself to God is manifested by its legislation. To be in accord with the divine plan every country must, by its elections, signify its firm will to live for Christ and His service.

S: In that case you definitely subject the affairs of state to God and to Jesus Christ?

T: Undoubtedly, the affairs of state are subject to God and to Jesus Christ, on whom they depend absolutely.

“The authority of temporal rulers is a share in the universal temporal Kingship of Christ. State officials and rulers will have to give an account of their stewardship on the Last Day. Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical Quas Primas says that by the celebration of the Feast of the Kingship of Christ, rulers “will be led to reflect on that last judgment, in which Christ, Who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will severely avenge such insults; for His kingly dignity demands that the constitution of the whole state should conform to the divine commandments and Christian principles, whether in the making of laws, the administration of justice, or in the molding of the minds of the young on sound doctrine and upright morals.” This judgment will turn, firstly, on whether they sought the common good of their subjects or their own selfish ends, and, secondly, on whether they sought the common good in such a manner as to respect and favor the ordered tendency of their subjects to their final supernatural end, namely, union with the Blessed Trinity for all eternity. “For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded” (Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII Libertas, on Human Liberty). The great Pontiff has here made his own what has been so excellently laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas (De Regimine Principum, lib. I., c. 15): “As the rectitude of this present life has for end eternal happiness, a ruler ought to procure the common good of the people in the manner best suited to the attainment by them of the happiness of heaven. Accordingly, he ought to command what leads to eternal happiness and forbid as far as it is possible what is contrary thereto. …

“Two things are required for a good life on the part of the people. The chief requisite is virtuous action ... the other requisite, which is secondary and quasi-instrumental in character, is a sufficiency of material goods, the use of which is necessary for virtuous action.” Political life, being the social life of man, is both moral and material. As such (formaliter) it is moral: as a prerequisite thereto, it is material and must take account of the production and distribution of wealth. Man as man does not live on bread alone nor even is that his chief need. The state must look after roads and railways, treaties regarding imports and exports and such like. That however, is not its whole domain. Its principal care must be to combat with all its might everything that tends to lower the moral dignity of man, everything that is an obstacle to his reaching eternal happiness.

The spiritual Kingship of our divine Lord Jesus Christ, includes needless to say, the right of intervention in temporal affairs in so far as the interests of the divine life of souls, which comes from our Lord as Priest, demand it. We must here insist upon the fact that the spiritual Kingship of our Lord is participated in by the Heads of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Bishops. Temporal affairs as such, matters purely political, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, which is concerned with the divine life of souls. Yet, in so far as temporal affairs, political and economic programs, for example, interfere with that divine life and with the eternal salvation of souls, the Church (that is the Pope and the Bishops) has the right to pronounce judgment thereon. The Church accordingly pronounces judgment on matters that are either purely spiritual, like the administration of the sacraments, or partially spiritual (mixed matters, like the programs of schools, the effects of marriage) or matters which though temporal by nature on account of the spiritual interests involved, are yet accidentally spiritual. A passage in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, expresses clearly this distinction: “Whatever therefore, in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church.” The full import of the phrases italicized above should be carefully weighed. (Cf. La juridiction de I’Eglise sur la Cite, by l’Abbé Ch. Journet, pp. 79–83.)

Concerning the manner in which this right should be exercised, the Church alone is judge. “From the tranquility of public order, which is the immediate purpose of civil society, man expects that he may be able to secure all his needful well-being, and still more that he may find that sheltering care required for the perfection of his moral life, which consists mainly in the knowledge and practice of virtue. …The Church cannot stand by indifferent as to the import and significance of laws enacted by the state, not so far indeed as they refer to the state, but in so far as, passing beyond their due limits, they trench upon the rights of the Church. By God has the duty been assigned to the Church not only to offer resistance, if at any time the state rule should run counter to religion, but, further, to make a strong endeavor that the power of the Gospel may pervade the laws and institutions of the nations. And inasmuch as the destiny of the state depends mainly on the disposition of those who are at the head of affairs, it follows that the Church cannot give countenance or favor to those whom she knows to be imbued with a spirit of hostility to her; who refuse openly to respect her rights; who make it their aim and purpose to tear asunder the alliance that should, by the very nature of things, connect the interests of religion with those of the state, on the contrary, she is (as she is bound to be) the upholder of those who are themselves imbued with correct ideas about the relations between Church and state, and who strive to have them work in perfect accord for the common good. These precepts contain the abiding rule by which every Catholic should shape his conduct in regard to public life. In short, …it is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth who will faithfully safeguard Catholic interests, and on no account is it permitted to prefer to them such as are hostile to religion” (Encyclical Letter Sapientiae Christianae, of Pope Leo XIII, On the Chief Duties of Catholics as Citizens).

To emphasize how uncatholic is the attitude of mind which professes a readiness to accept the dogmatic teaching of the Church while rejecting the right of the Pope and the Bishops to lay down what is morally right and morally wrong in the conduct of life, another passage from the Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae must be quoted. “In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed with Catholic and divine Faith. But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of Bishops, and above all of the Apostolic See, …She (the Church) is not an association of Christians brought together by chance, but is a divinely established and admirably constituted society, having for its direct and proximate purpose to lead the world to peace and holiness.”

The Kingdom of God on earth in its essence is the Church, but in its integrity the Kingdom of God on earth is the Church and the temporal social order, which it ever strives to bring into existence by its contact with the world. The Church, supernatural and supra-national organization, is ever seeking to Catholicize the political and economic organization of the world. A truly Catholic social order would be opposed on the one hand to Protestant liberalism and on the other hand to Jewish Marxism. Now politics is the science which has for object the organization of the state in view of the complete common good of the citizens in the natural order and the means that conduce to it. Political Action, by the fact that it is human action, is subject to the laws of morality. That is a truth known by the light of natural reason. The final end of man is, however, not merely natural, therefore the state, charged with the temporal social order, must ever act so as not only to hinder but to favor the attaining of man’s supreme end, the vision of God in Three divine persons. Political thought and political action, therefore, in an ordered state, will respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, the divinely instituted guardian of the moral order, remembering that what is morally wrong cannot be really politically good. Thus the natural or temporal common good of the state will be always aimed at in the way best calculated to favor the true development of human persons, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ. The civil power will then have a purer and higher notion of its proper end, acquired in the lull light of Catholic truth, and political action, both in rulers and ruled will come fully under the influence of supernatural life. The political work or action to be accomplished will not cease to be natural, but it will come more and more completely under the influence of the supernatural life of grace, participation in the inner life of the Blessed Trinity. Thus the Church, charged with the diffusion of that Supernatural life through the Sacraments, will see a social order truly Christian take the place of the present disorder. The Kingdom of God in its integrity will again be seen on earth.

When the social organization of the world is out of harmony with the supernatural end of man, it is very difficult, except for the saints and the martyrs, to avoid mortal sin and preserve charity. When, however, there is a return to full Catholic social order, thousands of Christians, sustained by the framework of society, can live and die in union with our divine Lord. They would have been too feeble to breast alone and continually the demoralizing current of a disordered world. (Cf. the splendid article by M. l’Abbe Journet in Nova et Vetera, Oct.–Dec., 1931. P. 377),

S: But you will be accused of preaching politics from the pulpit?

T: Accusations brought against truth and against the mission of truth are to be held as of little account. Obviously there is necessary a certain degree of prudence, but, as we have shown, prudence must not be transformed into approval of error and a veritable betrayal of the truth. It is highly imprudent to desire to be agreeable to those who will not accept the entire dependence of political thought and action on God. We should never cease to preach from the pulpit and to proclaim everywhere that all political action must be subject to God and to Jesus Christ. The silence of preachers is always desired by those who find their own advantage therein. Therefore, instead of keeping silence, for fear of wounding certain opinions or pretended convictions, we must find in them rather a call to do battle for the truth.

Our divine Lord’s aim is ever the same—to unite all men in the life of the Mystical Body. He wants all to be members of one fold, so that, animated with the divine life of grace and charity, they may renew His offering of Himself on Calvary, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For that end, the Catholic Church seeks to bring the political and economic life of man into harmony with their supernatural end. But the tendency to section life is, alas, deeply rooted in our fallen nature. Men tend to lead a double life, ready in Church to sing the Credo and profess their faith, but not liking to have their political and economic ideals called in question. Unless their faith in the life of the Mystical Body is deep, even Catholics, when their political or economic ideas are declared to be out of harmony with right order, are prone to talk about impudent and unwarranted interference on the part of the heads of the Church.

Priests, therefore, must preach unflinchingly the doctrine of the Mystical Body of our divine Lord Jesus Christ, with the rights of the Pope and the Bishops who participate in the spiritual Kingship of Christ the King. But they must always point out also that the Church does not interfere in merely political matters and is above all party politics.

They themselves, in the discharge of their sacerdotal functions, must remember what St. Paul said of his own action: “I became all things to all men that I might save all.” (1Cor. 9:22).

The Holy See has on more than one occasion enunciated these principles. Let us turn first to the Encyclical Letter, Sapientiae Christianae, of Pope Leo XIII, from which we have already quoted: “A notable difference exists between every kind of civil rule and that of the Kingdom of Christ. If this latter bear a certain likeness and character to a civil kingdom, it is distinguished from it by its origin, principle, and essence. The Church, therefore, possesses the right to exist and to protect herself by institutions and laws in accordance with her nature. And since she is not only a perfect society in herself, but superior to every other society of human growth, she resolutely refuses, prompted alike by right and by duty, to link herself to any mere party and to subject herself to the fleeting exigencies of politics. On like grounds the Church, always the guardian of her own right and most observant of that of others, holds that it is not her province to decide which is the best amongst many diverse forms of government and the civil institutions of Christian states, and amid the various kinds of state rule she does not disapprove of any, provided the respect due to religion and the observance of good morals be upheld. By such standard of conduct should the thoughts and mode of acting of every Catholic be directed. There is no doubt but that in the sphere of politics ample matter may exist for legitimate difference of opinion, and that, the single reserve being made of the rights of justice and truth, all may strive to bring into actual working the ideas believed likely to be more conducive than others to the general welfare. But to attempt to involve the Church in party strife, and seek to bring her support to bear against those who take opposite views, is only worthy of partisans. Religion should, on the contrary, be accounted by everyone as holy and inviolate; nay in the very public order of states—which cannot be severed from the laws influencing morals and from religious duties—it is always urgent, and indeed the main preoccupation, to take thought how best to consult the interests of Catholicism. Whenever these appear by reason of the efforts of adversaries to be in danger, all differences of opinion among Catholics should forthwith cease, so that, like thoughts and counsels prevailing, they may hasten to the aid of religion, the general and supreme good to which all else should be referred. …

This is not now the time and place to inquire whether and how far the inertness and internal dissensions of Catholics have contributed to the present condition of things; but it is certain at least that the perverse-minded would exhibit less boldness, and would not have brought about such an accumulation of ills, if the faith which worketh by charity (Ep. ad Gal. v. 6), had been generally more energetic and lively in the souls of men, and had there not been so universal a drifting away from the divinely established rule of morality throughout Christianity. May at least the lessons afforded by the memory of the past have the good result of leading to a wiser mode of acting in the future.”

A passage from the Letter of Cardinal Gasparri, then Secretary of State of Pope Pius XI, to the Italian Hierarchy, 2nd October, 1922, elaborates certain points more in detail: “The Holy See…faithful to its principle of not allowing itself to be drawn into merely political struggles, has always remained and intends always to remain outside the Popular Party (Partito Popolare) as it remains outside all other political parties. It is determined to disapprove and condemn the Popular Party like other parties in case they take up an attitude opposed to the principles of religion and of Christian morality. Certainly nobody would deny the right of Bishops and parish priests to have, as private citizens, their personal opinions and political preferences, so long as these are in harmony with the dictates of an upright conscience and with the interests of religion. It is no less evident that as Bishops and parish priests, they must remain completely aloof from party struggles, keeping themselves on a plane superior to every purely political contention. …In doubtful cases, as well as in all those where the action of the Bishop or the parish priest might compromise the religious interests committed to their care, the enlightened zeal of faithful pastors of souls will not hesitate to stand aside.”[4]

The Church, then, insists upon the importance of taking part in political action in order to restore the rule of Christ the King in public life, but she will not identify Catholic politics with party-politics. The highest ends and aims of a political party will be always more circumscribed than the universal ends and aims of the Church and besides a political party is continually under the obligation of taking up and deciding a number of questions which Catholics are free to discuss and about which they may differ. The distinction between Catholic Action, to which it belongs to proclaim and defend Catholic political doctrine, and political parties is forcibly insisted upon by the Sovereign Pontiff. In his address to the assembly of the Italian Catholic Federation, 30th October, 1926, Pope Pius XI, stated this in unequivocal terms: “Catholic Action is on a plane above and outside any political party. It does not intend to advance the political ideas of a party nor is it a political party. Catholics have nevertheless understood that this does not mean that they should take no interest in politics, when by politics is meant the common good in opposition to individual and particular goods. The common goods are the goods of the state, of the nation, of the community, in the full sense of the term. How could a Catholic fail to be interested in those things which are of the greatest importance . . . and on which depend the very goods bestowed by God—family goods, personal goods and the interests of religion itself? We cannot leave those things out of consideration. Hence we must draw the following conclusion.

Catholic Action, while not engaging in party politics, aims at preparing men to act as good politicians, to work for the common good according to right principles. It seeks then to prepare the consciences of citizens politically and equip them, in that respect also, as Christians and Catholics. As this formation progresses, great decisions and great actions in the Christian and Catholic sense are prepared also at the same time. Thus, consequently, not only does Catholic Action not prevent individual Catholics from engaging in political action in order to promote the common welfare, but it imposes upon them the duty of so doing, for it obliges them to intervene in politics with a more enlightened conscience and a clearer grasp of the importance of the issues at stake.”

Catholics must endeavor to assimilate and promote the realization of Catholic political and economic doctrine: that is the province of Catholic Action. But in order to bring about the realization of Catholic political teaching, they must nearly always enter into a political party and help to direct and guide it: in that they act on their own responsibility, except, of course, the Church commands Catholics to adopt a certain attitude in a political affair, because of its morally necessary connection with the good of souls. All, especially the young, should prepare themselves to take part in the political life of their country by an attentive study of philosophy, social science and religion. Catholic young men should take part in politics when necessary, because it is necessary, with a fitting preparation, a complete preparation, religious, cultural, economic, social. This preparation will be all the better, inasmuch as Catholic Action, without itself taking part in politics, seeks to train Catholics to make the best use of opportunities of political action” (Pius XI, Allocution to Italian Catholic Students, 9th September, 1924). In his Letter to the Catholics of Lombardy at the end of 1921, the then Cardinal Ratti had insisted upon “the study of sound Catholic philosophy” in Catholic associations in order to get a grasp of social and political questions. (Cf. La Cité Chrétienne, vol. ii., by Henri Brun, p. 122.)

[1]  Authorized Translation: Browne and Nolan.

[2]  Translated from the original.

[3]  Translated from the original.

[4]  No. 32 of the Maynooth Statutes (1927) touches on these latter points in almost identical terms: “We earnestly recommend the clergy, especially Parish Priests and those having the care of souls without prejudice to the right they enjoy as private citizens to give their support to any line of political action which is in harmony with the dictates of an upright conscience and with the teaching of the Church, to remain aloof from contentious political disputes and from divisions in local administrative bodies. If it be doubtful whether their ministry would suffer in any way from the exercise of the aforesaid civil right, they should abstain from any intervention whatsoever.” (Cf. Statutes 33, 35, 36, 37 of the same Plenary Synod. Cf. also the Letter of Cardinal Gasparri to the Italian Hierarchy (25th April, 1923).

Chapter XIII

On the Organization of the Apostolic League

Student: Is there any organization duly constituted which has for its object to bring back society to God?

Teacher: Yes. Pope Benedict XV has blessed, praised and highly approved of the Apostolic League for the return of nations and peoples and the whole organization of society to God and our Savior, through Holy Church. Its title, in which it glories, was conferred on the League by the Pope himself. The Holy Father indeed went further and expressed the wish that all Catholics worthy of the name should join the Apostolic League.

S: What are the conditions of membership of the Apostolic League?

T: There are two conditions to be fulfilled by all. The first is to adopt and profess certain truths which are at the foundation of the work and which are necessary for the reform of men’s minds. These truths are that error and sin are destitute of right, either in society or in the individual; that all rights are based on truth and goodness exclusively; that, therefore, it is necessary to suppress and remove what are regarded as directive principles from the constitutions and laws of peoples, the so-called rights, which are not rights at all, and which are therein extolled as the rights of man; that these must be replaced by the rights of God, of Jesus Christ and of the Church, that every society depends on God as sovereign and absolute ruler and that it must be subject to Him.

The second condition is that members either offer every day some part of their prayers and of their sacrifices for the return of nations and of society everywhere to Christ, or recite a Pater, Ave and Gloria for this intention. Such are the minimum conditions.

S: Are there any other conditions?

T: There are souls who are particularly drawn by grace and who devote their lives in a special manner to the promotion of the object of the Apostolic League. They wish to live in closer union with the Blessed Trinity, they wish, as St. Paul says, “to fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ”; for this purpose, they form a special association and observe special rules.

S: Has the Pope granted spiritual favors to the members of the Apostolic League?

T: The Pope has granted numerous indulgences to the members:

1.  An indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines every time they do an act prescribed by the statutes, or every time that they impose on themselves, under the impulse of grace, a special prayer or act of mortification or act of apostleship directed to bring about the return of society to Christ.

2.  A plenary indulgence on the ordinary conditions: (i) on the day of their entry into the League or, if they prefer, any day in the week following; (ii) similarly, on the principal feasts which recall to mind that Christ is the immortal King of all nations and of all ages—Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, the Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, the Feast of the Sacred Heart, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; (iii) similarly, one day in the month chosen by themselves, which they consecrate altogether and in a special manner to the good of the Church, by applying to this object all their prayers and works.

3.  For priests the faculty of giving the Apostolic Blessing twice a year on the occasion of the more solemn meetings of the members of the League.

We draw special attention to the great favor of the indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines which the members of the League can gain toties quoties. It is not difficult to offer to God a suffering to be endured or a work to be done to obtain the return of all nations to God, nor is it difficult to lift one’s heart to God with the same intention. Members may acquire in a very short time a great many indulgences for the souls in purgatory, by praying for the intentions of the League and offering the treasures placed at their disposal by the Church for the suffering souls they love.

Chapter XIV

The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789

Student: You spoke in an earlier chapter of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. I should like, however, to have a clearer idea of its significance in modern history.

Teacher: I shall be very glad to return to the point and to emphasize the Rights of God. “About the ‘Rights of Man,’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the Rights of God” (Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII on Christ our Redeemer, Nov. I, 1900).

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the sole mediator of redeemed humanity. It is only by submission to His rule that all men and all nations can receive back the divine life of grace by which human life can be lived in order.” Never to have known Jesus Christ in any way is the greatest of misfortunes, but it involves no perversity or ingratitude. But after having known, to reject or forget Him is such a horrible and mad crime as to be scarcely credible. For He is the origin and source of all good and just as mankind could not be freed from slavery but by the sacrifice of Christ, so neither can it be preserved but by His power” (same Encyclical Letter, Tametsi, 1900). When a people which has grasped the truth of the Divine Plan turns against our Lord, by leaving Him out of account and by passing over in silence the rights of the Head of the Mystical Body, it commits apostasy and initiates the most frightful disorder. Having rejected the dependence of mankind on the sacred humanity of Jesus, man must necessarily put himself and his own natural life in the place of God. Now it is precisely in this that Rationalism consists and this is exactly what we find in the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. We behold, on the one hand, social apostasy and the rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the other, the substitution of man for God or the worship of humanity.[1]

The preamble to this infamous document runs as follows: “The representatives of the French people met together in a national assembly, considering that the ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, have decided to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man, so that this Declaration, being ever before the eyes of all the members of society, may unceasingly remind them of their rights and duties. …

“Consequently, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and the citizen.

“Art. I. Men are born free and equal in rights and continue so. Social distinctions can be founded only on public utility. …

“Art. III. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No society, no individual, can exercise an authority which does not emanate from it expressly.

“Art. IV. Liberty is the power of doing what we will, so long as it does not injure another: the only limits of each man’s natural rights are such as secure the same rights to others; these limits are determinable only by law.

“Art. VI. The law is the expression of the general will…

“Art. X. No one can be molested for his opinions, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.

“Art. XI. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; therefore, every citizen is allowed freedom of speech, of writing, and of printing, but will have to answer for any abuse of that liberty in cases determined by law.”

Only a few of the articles of the Declaration are quoted. They will, however, be quite sufficient to illustrate the Rousseauist-Masonic doctrine of the immanent divinity of man which underlies the whole document. Of course there is a certain vagueness about some of the formulae. This is a well-known Masonic trick to deceive the unwary. For example, the uninitiated interpret the first article as follows: Men are free, that is, they can do what the law does not forbid: they may even profess the religion which pleases them; men are equal in rights, that is, all are equal before the law, all are eligible for public offices, all are subject to public duties, to taxes, etc. But the real meaning, the one behind which is the whole driving force of masonry and secret societies generally, is that each man in the state of nature, to which we must return to be happy, is free and independent like God. All are equally God. Man is born free; that is, unrestrained license is an absolute exigency of human nature; any kind of submission to any man is contrary to nature. As all are equally God, nature demands that the strictest equality should be realized amongst men, and that, therefore, everyone should have a vote. Accordingly, in a state correctly formed, an absolute social equality should counterbalance natural inequalities. Needless to say the logical consequence is Communism. For if all men are equal, why are some rich and others poor? The right of private property is the greatest cause of social inequality, so it must be abolished. Other distinctions must disappear as well. If all men are equal, the classifications of superiors and inferiors, parents and children, husbands and wives must be eliminated.

The state may, of course, allow the family and private property to exist, so long as it judges them necessary for the common good of society, but as soon as it finds that the public welfare demands such modifications the state can “emancipate woman” and bring together all private fortunes into one common capital.[2] It is strange that professing Catholics do not see the absurdity of proclaiming, in their oratorical efforts, that all men are equal. They ought to realize whither they are being led.

Men are born free and equal, but they make themselves citizens. By nature, they are untrammeled by any social bond, but by an arbitrary contract, called the Social Contract, they create a society. Human reason, before the social fact, was absolutely mistress and completely autonomous in each man; now under the name of state it has, of course, the same independence and autonomy, only more enlightened. The general will is the expression of the will of the immanent God. The rule of the majority is the rule of the pantheistic Multitude-God. The state is God. The will of the state is not limited by natural or supernatural law. The people can do no wrong.[3]

Of course most of those who proclaim the Sovereignty of the People are far from being aware of the full significance of the Rousseauist-Masonic dogma. Catholics may think that in proclaiming it, they are only rejecting the arbitrary power of absolute monarchs and holding that the nation has the right to choose its rulers and to determine the form of authority. Those, however, who enter into the inner meaning of those formulae know that the phrase, ‘the People is Sovereign,’ means that the popular will is the supreme and final law, superior to all natural and supernatural law, always legitimate and sacred. The will of the people, in the minds of those who accept the principles of 1789, is “the exclusive judge of truth and falsehood, of good and evil, no account being taken of God” (Prop. 3 condemned in the Syllabus). For them also “the state is the source and fountain of every right; its own rights are unrestricted” (Prop. 39 of the Syllabus).[4]

On the one hand, then, the state is sovereign. Accordingly, whatever the state decrees or does is holy and sacred. The way is thus open for the most awful despotism. As, according to Article 111, “no society, no individual can exercise an authority which does not emanate from the state,” the authority of the Pope and the Bishops is illegitimate and, if not suppressed, must be put in its place.

This idea of the unlimited sovereignty of the state is the source of the phraseology which “guarantees religious liberty to every citizen.” The state is above the Mystical Body of Christ and puts it alongside and on the same level with the religions invented by men. On the other hand, the people is sovereign, even with regard to the state. The people, therefore, can overthrow the government when they will. Of course what happens is this: when the moral sense of the people and their respect for authority have been weakened by the decay of religion and every form of propaganda, an organized minority, prepared by the agents of secret societies, will seize power and impose an iron yoke upon the people, in the name of the People (with a capital letter).

We have only to turn to some of the official documents of the new Masonic Republic in Spain (1931) to see those principles being actualized. The Procurator General of the Republic took the following oath: “I swear and I promise on my honor to consecrate myself to the carrying out of all the laws emanating from the sovereign will of the people, now represented by the Provisional Government of the Republic.” The Commandant Franco, head of the Air Service, addressed the following proclamation to his subordinates: “The holy rebellion of 15th December last, begun at Jaca and Quatrovientos and continued in all the Spanish provinces, has brought about in a few months the re-establishment of the Spanish Democratic Republic. Our rebellion was not seditious, on the contrary, conscious as we all were of the republican sentiments of the Spanish people, we had to overthrow the traditional obstacles which stood in the way of the empire of the sovereignty of the People.”

Needless to say, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Spanish Republic of 9th December, 1931, states that all the powers of the Republic emanate from the people. Article 2 affirms that all Spaniards are equal before the law,” while Article 3 carries on the work of turning mankind against order by proclaiming that the “Spanish state has no official religion.” Of course, having declared against the Mystical Body of Christ explicitly by dissolving the Society of Jesus, because of its vow of obedience to an authority distinct from the legitimate authority of the state,” the latest Rousseauist-Masonic Republic talks as usual about liberty of conscience. The divinity immanent in the man of 1789 always attacks the divine life of grace that comes from Jesus Christ, in a Rousseauist-Masonic Republic by laws, in a Communist Republic by violence. The result aimed at in both cases is the same, for the immanent deity cannot brook any other gods in his presence. Of course Satan will direct his agents, in the first place, against the religious orders, because they make profession of living perfectly that divine life which he rejected. In the new Spanish Constitution, we read that “the religious orders (other than the Society of Jesus) shall be subject to a special law voted by the Cortes and drawn up according to the following principles: (I) Those religious orders which, by their activity constitute a menace to the security of the state, shall be dissolved.”…

Finally, as woman is God equally with man—unfortunately for her she is a weaker divinity endowed with less brute force—marriage in the new Spanish Constitution gets practically the same treatment as in Soviet Russia, where the principles of 1789 have been pushed to their full logical conclusion. Article 43 affirms that “marriage is founded upon equality of rights for the two sexes: it may be dissolved by mutual consent or on the demand of one or other of the parties, provided, in the latter case, a sufficient motive be advanced.” Of marriage as a sacrament and of the divine life conferred thereby, the new divinity of 1789 will not hear.

Returning now to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, we see that, by Article 11, each individual being God has the right of printing and publishing and saying whatever he wills. As all he says and does is divine, it is evident that his rights are unlimited, except the law, the expression of the general will, is in opposition. For the general will is the will of the immanent social divinity of the pantheistic state based on the principles of 1789. The Common Ego of the majority is more myself than myself, therefore the citizen is subject to a law against which he has voted and which hampers him in some of his “divinely inspired” actions, obeys only himself. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose ideas are so extolled by Masonry and Communism, points out that the people vote, not for the sake of giving their opinions, but in order that, by the sum of their votes, an expression of the general will, a pronouncement of the immanent deity, may be obtained. A vote on the part of a member of the minority proves that he has mistaken what the social divinity wanted. The will of the majority does not need to be just or in conformity with supernatural or natural order. In fact, there is no such order. The will of the majority is the will of God—in a new sense—and the individual must bow to it. When the new divinity is once in power, it is frightful to see with what savagery he demands for himself that obedience which he refused to the True God and to Christ the King. Of course, he must do so, for the rejection of God and of the divine life that comes from the sacred humanity of Jesus Crucified leads to the dehumanization of man. “The tyranny to which the Bolshevik doctrine of salvation leads…is far more comprehensive and therefore more intolerable than a tyranny of the normal sort.”[5]

S: You seem to imply that both Masonry and Communism are working for the same end: the installation of humanity or the collectivity as God and the rejection of the divine life of our Lord and of His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.

T: Yes. Both are based on the pantheistic deification of man. When man lost hold on the ordered relation between God and himself and rejected our Lord, naturalism inevitably led to pantheism. Pope Leo XIII points this out in his Encyclical Letters on The Study of Scholastic Philosophy and on Freemasonry. In the latter Encyclical he points out: “This change and overthrow (of all things) is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of Communists and Socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also, because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resists their insane attempts.” It would be well for Catholics everywhere to bear in mind that the universal republic aimed at by both Masons and Communists, is to be based on the rejection of the Kingship of Christ. Irish Catholics, divided about secondary matters, should remember that all must be royalists and monarchists where the allegiance of Ireland to Christ the King is at stake.

And the rule of Christ the King cannot be separated from the rule of His representatives, the Heads of His Mystical Body here below, the Pope and the Bishops.

S: But is man, then, for society or society for man?

T: Man is for society and society is for man. Both statements are true. The Thomistic distinction between personality and individuality will help you to grasp accurately man’s relation to society.

Man is both a person and an individual. personality is based upon the possession of an immortal soul, which is a spiritual whole ordained immediately and directly to God. Thus, man resembles the angels. The Liberalism which was so impatient of state interference with economic competition exaggerated this resemblance. Individuality has its origin in the matter of which human bodies are composed with its demand for quantity and divisibility. Thus, man resembles the animals. Communism exaggerates this resemblance. As an individual, man is part of the whole called society and as such is for the state. As a person, on the contrary, the state is for him and is the subject of its subjects.

In the state of nature, as described by Rousseauist-Masonic revolutionary oratory, man is exclusively a person, his individuality, by which he is a member of a society, constituted by God with definite duties, is left out of account. The first of these duties is, needless to say, to take up one’s cross as a member of Christ and deny oneself. On the other hand, in the society set up by the Social Contract of Rousseau and by the Communism of Karl Marx, man is merely an individual. His personality is denied and the whole being of man, soul and body, is placed at the mercy of the political wire-pullers and of the International financial forces which, in the last resort, maneuver them. Thus, one-sided Liberalism, issuing from Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism and Masonry, winds up in the same tyranny as the Judaeo-Masonic Communism of Karl Marx.

[1]  The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791 and of 1793, made explicit certain points implicitly contained in that of 1789.

[2]  Cf. Encyclical Letter, Graves de Communi, of Pope Leo XIII. It may be said, in opposition to what is here advanced, that Article XVII of the Declaration safeguards private property, of which no one can be deprived except public necessity evidently demands it, and then only on condition of just indemnity being given to the owner.” This is only another example of the vague and contradictory character of these formulae. The Communists, who push the doctrine of the immanent divinity of man to its logical conclusions, interpret Article XVII in either of two ways. Some say that this Article is opposed to Art. I and demand the suppression of private property in the name of equality. Others admit this article, but say that, of course public necessity demands the immediate suppression of private property. The proprietors will be compensated, they affirm, by a share in the common revenues. In both cases the result is the same. (Cf. Les Erreurs modernes, by Dom P. Benoit, vol. i. p. 491.)

[3]  “The will of the people or popular suffrage is of such authority of itself (per se) that it needs no reason to validate its acts.” This proposition was submitted to the Bishops who came to Rome in 1862, and was declared heretical by the Theological Commission. (Cf. Les Erreurs modernes, by Dom P. Benoit, vol. i. p. 425.)

[4]  Cf. Les Erreurs modernes, by Dom P. Benoit, vol. i. PP. 421 -436. The source of all civic rights and duties is either in the people or in the public authority, constituted according to the new principles” (Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus, of Leo XIII, on Freemasonry.)

[5]  Bolshevism: Theory and Practice, by Waldemar Gurian, p. 245. This splendid work has just been published by Sheed and Ward, London.

Chapter XV

Recapitulation—The Feast of Christ the King

Student: As we are now about to conclude would you mind repeating for convenience the principal truths set out in this work?

Teacher: With pleasure. They are as follows:

1.  God is the supreme being, independent and sovereign. All that exists apart from Him has been created by Him, and its dependence on Him is absolute and complete. He alone has complete power and authority over all things. Not only does all depend on Him, but all must return to Him as its only ultimate end. In a word, all societies, nations, and states, belong to God, Who is their Creator and final end.

2.  Jesus Christ our Lord, God and Man has received from God in His humanity all power in heaven and on earth; all authority is subject to Him. He is invested with a power truly royal, and this power is shared by the Pope and the Bishops who rule the Church.

3.  From these explanations it follows that all constitutions ought to have as their head and their foundation God, Christ Jesus and the Church.

4.  By the Declaration of the Rights of Man, God and all that is divine were eliminated from constitutions and legislation, and replaced by man usurping the place of God.

5.  The result of this substitution is the abolition of all divine law and the proclamation of so-called human rights alone. It means the triumph of laicism, of atheism and of all the errors which are the logical conclusion of the “rights” of man, the errors which are the logical conclusion of the “rights” of man.

6.  From this it would follow that man is independent of God and must be free from all restraint, must have license of conscience, of teaching, of the press, of association, of religion. In strange contradiction to this is the power he claims to make laws and to impose them by force.

7.  Unless we wish one day to be punished by God and meet with dire calamities of every sort, all the so-called liberties and the general foundation of them must be abolished. With this object in view, we must make use of all the liberties which are granted to us, to bring about the suppression of all false and subversive principles and to do all the good we can. We must use permission to instruct to teach freely the doctrine of Jesus Christ; we must use permission to print to make known saving truth; we must take advantage of permission to associate to join together to procure the good of souls; we must openly profess the worship of the true God. We must profit by all those pretended rights to make men realize that only truth and goodness have rights, that error and evil have not.

8.  Thus all will return to peace and order, because all will be subject to God and our Lord Jesus Christ through the Church. Nations will be united in the bonds of justice and charity in Christ and under the supernatural guidance of the Pope. All nations will then form a real Apostolic League of Nations. The world will have found the path of salvation.

S: What was the intention of Pius XI in instituting the Feast of the Kingship of Christ?

T: The Pope wished by this special feast to bring to mind all the benefits conferred by the God-Man on the human race, especially the blessing of ordered organization of society, which is the condition of peace in the internal and external affairs of peoples. It will be best to allow the Sovereign Pontiff himself to express what he had in view. Any commentary would but weaken the force and the lucidity of the terms in which Pius XI instituted that feast which he invites the whole world to celebrate.

Quas Primas

Encyclical Letter of our

Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI

To his Venerable Brethren, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Ordinaries of places in peace and communion with the Apostolic See, on instituting a Feast of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ.

to our venerable brethren,

salutation and apostolic benediction

In the first Encyclical Letter We addressed, at the beginning of Our Pontificate, to the Bishops of the Universal Church, when reviewing the chief causes of the disasters that We saw mankind oppressed and harassed by, We stated clearly that this deluge of misfortune over the world was due to the attitude of the majority of men who had banished Jesus Christ and His holy law, not only from their personal lives and conduct, but from family and public life. And we added that no hope of lasting peace among nations could be reasonably entertained while individuals and states denied and rejected the sovereign rule of our Savior. We claimed that the Peace of Christ was to be sought in the Kingdom of Christ, and We stated that We would make good this claim in so far as would be granted to Us. Yes, in the Kingdom of Christ; for it seemed to Us that no more efficacious means for establishing peace on a lasting basis could be found than by restoring the sovereign rule of our Lord.

In the interval, signs of better times to come have not been wanting. We have noticed a spirit of zeal towards Christ and His Church, the sole medium of salvation, a spirit of zeal, now for the first time manifested by some, in others characterized by marked intensity. And so it appears that many who held the kingship of Christ in contempt, and who had exiled themselves from His kingdom, are making for a speedy and auspicious return to their duties of obedience.

The many notable and memorable events that have occurred during this Holy Year have given great honor and glory to our Lord and High King, the Founder of the Church. Take, for instance, the Missionary Exhibition. How wonderful the impression it made on the minds and hearts of men. Whether they regarded the unceasing zeal of the Church to extend daily the kingdom of the Spouse unto all continents and islands, even to the farthest limits of the ocean; whether they considered the great number of lands that have been won over to the Catholic name, at the cost indeed of toil and blood, by missionaries of supreme courage and indomitable spirit; or whether, lastly, they considered the vast extent of territory that yet remains to be brought under the sweet and saving yoke of our King—wonderful indeed was the impression on men’s minds and hearts. And the vast numbers that visited the city from all quarters, led by their prelates or priests, during the holy time, were impelled by no other motive than the desire to become duly cleansed from the guilt of sin, and at the tombs of the Apostles and in Our presence, to make profession of their loyalty to the sovereign rule of Christ and of their determination so to abide.

And when We ourselves raised by decree to the honor of the altar six confessors and virgins, after due proof of their heroic virtue, a new ray of splendor seemed to be shed on the kingdom of our Savior. What joy was Ours, what consolation when, in the august surroundings of the Basilica of St. Peter, Our decree was acclaimed by an immense multitude with the hymn of thanksgiving, Tu rex gloriae Christe—Thou, O Christ, art King of Glory. For while men and states who have turned away from God are driven along paths of raging hatred, discord and revolution to courses of destruction and ruin, the Church of God, ever breaking to mankind the bread of spiritual life, is ever raising up for Christ, in ceaseless succession, holy generations of men and women, while He, in reward for their fidelity and obedience during the period of subjection in the earthly kingdom, is ever summoning His faithful ones to the reward of everlasting happiness in celestial bliss.

Moreover, since this jubilee Year marks the sixteenth centenary of the Council of Nicea, We commanded that event to be celebrated, and We have done so in the Vatican Basilica. There is a special reason for this, in that the Nicene Synod defined and proposed for Catholic belief the dogma of the consubstantiality of the only-begotten with the Father, and affirmed the kingly dignity of Christ by inserting in its symbol or formula of faith the words: cuius regni non erit finis—of whose kingdom there shall be no end.

Seeing, therefore, the many opportunities this Holy Year has offered for shedding luster on the Kingdom of Christ, We feel We shall be acting in thorough accordance with the spirit of Our Apostolic Office, if in concession to the requests of many Cardinals, Bishops, and faithful—requests individually and collectively presented—We mark the close of this year by introducing into ecclesiastical liturgy a special Feast of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so dear to Us is this matter that We desire to address you. Venerable Brethren, at some length concerning it, for the duty will be yours to explain afterwards to the faithful, in language they can feel and understand, the substance of Our words concerning devotion to Christ as King, so that manifold advantages may attend upon, and result from, the annual celebration of the Feast that is to be instituted.

christ as king in the applied sense of the word

It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of King, because of His supreme excellence, His surpassing pre-eminence among all created things. So He is said to reign in the minds of men, both by reason of His great mental vision and His abounding knowledge, and also because He is Truth, and from Him as source men must needs draw off and obediently accept truth. In the wills of men, too, He is said to reign, not only because His human will is in entire and perfect consonance with, and in submission to, the Holy divine will, but also because from Him come the moving force and inspiration whereby our free wills are ever incited to the noblest endeavor. Finally, Christ is recognized as rider of our hearts, because of His love that surpasseth knowledge, (Eph. 3:9) and His meekness and kindness that draws souls to Him. For never has it been granted to anyone, and never shall it be granted, to be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ has been loved and shall be loved.

christ as king in the literal sense of the word

But if we examine this matter more closely, we cannot fail to see that the name King, in its literal sense, and kingly power, must needs be prerogatives of Christ as man. For it is only as man that He can be said to have received from the Father power and glory and a kingdom, (Dan. 7:13–14) since the divine Lord, being consubstantial with the Father, must have all things in common with the Father, and so must have supreme and absolute sovereignty over all creatures. And, indeed, we find it broadcast in the pages of sacred scripture that Christ is King. He is spoken of as the ruler that shall arise from Jacob, (Ps. 2) who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, His holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for His inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for His possession. (Num. 24:19) In the nuptial hymn, where the true King of Israel, who was to come, is hailed as a rich and powerful monarch, we find the words: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. (Ps. 44) Passing by many references of this kind, we find in another passage, whose purport is to outline more definitely, as it were, the characteristic features of Christ, presage made of His kingdom, which is to know no bounds, and where justice and peace will function in fullness: In His days shall justice spying up, and abundance of peace… And He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. (Ps. 81)

More abundant still is the testimony of the Prophets. That of Isaias is well known: For a Child is born to us and a Son is given to us and the government is upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of Peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it and to strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and forever (Isa. 6, 7). And the utterances of the other Prophets are in exact accord with Isaias. Jeremiah foretells of the just seed that shall arise from the house of David, the son of David, that shall reign as king, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice ire the earth. (Jer. 23:5) Daniel prophesies a kingdom to be founded by the God of heaven, a kingdom that shall never be destroyed…and shall stand forever. And he adds almost immediately: I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and to one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven. And He came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented Him before Him. And He gave Him power and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve Him. His Power is an everlasting Power that shall not be taken away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13–14) And the holy Evangelists themselves recognized and bore testimony to the fulfilment of Zachary’s prophecy concerning the gentle King, who, riding upon an ass and the colt of an ass, was to enter Jerusalem as the just one and Savior amid the acclamations of multitudes. (Zac. 9:9)

Now this same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ, to which We have made passing reference, as contained in the books of the Old Testament, is found also in the New Testament, laid down in language unequivocal and sublime. Just to mention the message of the Archangel. He announces to the Virgin that she shall give birth to a Son, to whom the Lord God shall give the throne of David His father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end. (Lk. 1:32, 33) Christ Himself bears testimony to His sovereign power on numerous occasions: in His last discourse to the people, when He spoke about the rewards or punishments that were to be the eternal meed of the just or damned; in His reply to the Roman governor, who asked Him publicly if He was king; after His resurrection, when He gave to His Apostles the commission of teaching and baptizing all nations-whenever the occasion offered He took the name of King (Mt. 35:31–40) and openly declared He was King, (Jn. 18:37) and solemnly proclaimed that all power in heaven and on earth was given to Him (Mt. 28:18). These words can be taken to mean nothing but the greatness of His power and the infinite extent of His kingdom. Is it any wonder, then, that He who is called by St. John, “prince of the kings of the earth,” (Apoc. 1:5) hath on His garments and on His thigh written King of kings and Lord of lords, (Apoc. 19:16) as He appeared in the Apostle’s vision of the future. Christ it is whom the Father hath appointed heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and so He must reign until, at the end of the world. He puts all enemies beneath the feet of God and the Father (1Cor. 15:25).

This, then, being the common teaching of the sacred books, it ought surely to follow that the Catholic Church, which is the Kingdom of Christ on earth, to be extended to all men and to all lands, should in profuse and dutiful spirit of veneration salute in the annual round of her sacred liturgy, her Author and Founder, as King and Lord and King of kings. These titles of honor, indeed whose meaning is one and the same, beautiful and varied as are the expressions—the Church applied in the old psalmody and in the ancient sacramentaries; and she applies them today in the daily prayers publicly offered to the divine Majesty, and in the immolation of the Immaculate Victim. There is, in fact, an admirable and manifest harmony between the Eastern liturgies and ours in the perpetual praise of Christ as King, illustrating, in this connection also, the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi—The rule followed in prayer indicates the rule of faith.

the basis of christ’s royal dignity and power

The basis of this dignity and power of our Lord has been well observed by Cyril of Alexandria: In a word, he says, Christ has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence, nor got from any other source than that of His own nature and essence. That is to say: His Kingship is founded on the ineffable hypostatic union. Hence it follows that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, not only as God, but that angels and men must obey and be subject to His sovereignty as man; that by sole virtue of the hypostatic union, Christ has power over all creatures. But what reflection can give us more pleasure and joy than the reflection that Christ is our King, not only by natural but by acquired right, by virtue of His redemption?

Would that men who forget what price we have cost Our Savior would all reflect upon these words: You were not redeemed by corruptible things, such as gold and silver, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled (1Pet. 1:18–19). We are no longer our own property, since Christ has purchased us with a great price (1Cor. 6:15); our very bodies are the members of Christ (1Cor. 6:20).

the nature of christ’s royalty

Now to explain briefly the meaning and nature of this sovereign power: it consists, We need scarcely say, of a three-fold power, and if this is lacking, the idea of sovereignty is scarcely intelligible. This is abundantly clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal sovereignty of our Redeemer. And it is a dogma of Catholic faith that Christ Jesus was given to men as a Redeemer in whom they are to place their trust, and at the same time as a legislator whom they are to obey.[1] Not only do the Gospels tell us that He made laws, they represent Him in the act of making them. And the divine Master says on different occasions and in different words that those who keep these laws will give proof of their love for Him, and that they will abide in His love (Jn. 14:15, 15:10). Judicial power Jesus Himself claims as assigned Him by the Father when the Jews accused Him of violating the Sabbath rest by the miraculous cure of a sick man: “For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son” (1Jn. 5:22). In this power is included the privilege of rewarding and punishing of His own right all living men, for such privilege is inseparable from the power of judging. Executive power also must belong to Christ, for all must needs obey His sovereign rule, and against those who refuse to yield obedience He has issued a penalty of punishment which none may escape.

That this kingdom, indeed, is in a special manner spiritual, and concerned with things spiritual, is quite plain from the extracts from scripture above quoted; and Christ’s own line of action confirms this view. For on many occasions, when the Jews, and even the Apostles themselves, wrongly supposed that the Messiah would emancipate the people and restore the kingdom of Israel. He effectively rejected that idle hope and fancy. When the admiring throng surrounded Him and would have proclaimed Him king. He refused the title and honor by taking flight and lying in concealment. In the presence of the Roman governor, He declared His kingdom was not “of this world.” In the Gospels this kingdom is represented as one such as men prepare to enter by way of penance, but cannot actually enter except by faith and baptism; and baptism, although an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed only to the kingdom of Satan and the power of darkness; it demands from its subjects, not only a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, not only that they show gentleness in their lives, and hunger and thirst after justice, but also that they deny themselves and take up their cross. Since Christ, as Redeemer, purchased the Church by His own blood, and as Priest offered Himself as a victim for our sins and continues to offer Himself, is it not plain that His kingly office assumes and shares in the nature of both these offices?

christ’s authority in civil affairs

He, however, would be guilty of shameful error who would deny to Christ as man authority over civil affairs, no matter what their nature, since, by virtue of the absolute dominion over all creatures He holds from the Father, all things are in His power. Nevertheless, during His life on earth He refrained altogether from exercising such dominion, and despising then the possession and administration of earthly goods. He left them to their possessors then, and He does so today. As it is well put: Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestae[2]—He does not seize earthly kingdoms Who gives heavenly kingdoms. And so, the empire of Our Redeemer embraces all men. To quote the words of Our immortal predecessor. Pope Leo XIII: “His empire manifestly includes not only Catholic nations, not only those who were baptized, and of right belong to the Church, though error of doctrine leads them astray or schism severs them from her fold; but it includes also all those who are outside the Christian faith, so that truly the human race, in its entirety, is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.”[3] Nor, in this connection, is there any difference between individuals and communities whether family or state, for community aggregates are just as much under the dominion of Christ as individuals. The same Christ assuredly is the source of the individual’s salvation and of the com-munity’s salvation: Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the author of prosperity and of genuine happiness for every citizen and for the nation. For the happiness of the state comes from exactly the same source as the happiness of the individual, the state being nothing else than a number of individuals living in harmony.[4] If rulers, therefore, of nations wish to preserve their own authority, and to promote and increase their country’s prosperity, let them not refuse, themselves and their people, to give public observance of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority and want of respect for those in power, is equally true at the present day. With God and Jesus Christ, We complained, excluded from the Constitution and from the administration of the state, zenith authority derived not from God but from man, the very foundations of that authority aye torn asunder, because the chief reason of the distinction between rider and subject has been eliminated. With the result that human society must collapse because it has no secure support to rest upon.[5]

Whenever men recognize, both in public and in private life, Christ’s royal power, wonderful blessings would immediately be vouchsafed to all society, such as true liberty, discipline, tranquility, concord, and peace. For our Lord’s royal dignity, just as it invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance, ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience. Wherefore St. Paul, although he ordered wives to revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves to revere Christ in their masters, warned them to give them obedience, not as men, but only as taking the place of Christ, since it is not becoming that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men: You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men (1Cor. 7:23). If princes and magistrates duly elected be convinced that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the divine King, assuredly they will exercise their authority in a holy manner and wisely, and in making laws and administering them they will take into consideration the common good, and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be order and stable tranquility, for there will be no cause of discontent remaining. Men may see in their king or in other rulers of the state, beings like themselves, unworthy perhaps and open to blame, but they will not for that reason deny their right to command, if they see reflected in these rulers the authority of Christ, God and Man.

social rights of jesus christ -

peace in the kingdom of christ

In the interests of peace and harmony, too, it is clear that with the spread and universal extent of the Kingdom of Christ, men will become the more conscious of the link that binds them together, and so many conflicts will be altogether prevented, or at least their bitterness assuaged. Nor, if the Kingdom of Christ embraced all peoples in reality, as it does by right, would there be any reason to despair of that peace which the King of Peace brought to earth, the King who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and though Lord of all gave Himself a model of humility, and made humility His chief law, joining with it the precept of charity.

Who said, moreover, My yoke is sweet and My burden light. Oh, what happiness would be ours if individuals and families and states allowed themselves to be governed by Christ. To quote the words which Our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, addressed twenty-five years ago to the Bishops of the Universal Church: It is only then, said he, that so many wounds may be healed, then will the old-time respect for law revive, and Peace in its beauty will be restored, and the sword will fall from men’s hands, and arms will be cast aside, when all men freely acknowledge Christ’s sovereignty and obey it, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.[6]

a special feast in honor of the kingship of christ

Now to secure an abundant and permanent harvest of those blessings in Christian society it is necessary that our Savior’s royal dignity should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and nothing can better serve this end than the institution of a special feast in honor of Christ as King. For people are better instructed in the truths of faith and brought to appreciate the interior joys of religion far more effectively by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by even the weightiest pronouncements of the teaching of the Church. For such pronouncements reach only the few, and these generally the more learned, whereas all the faithful are stirred and taught by the celebration of feasts; pronouncements speak once, celebrations speak annually and forever; pronouncements affect the mind primarily, celebrations have a salutary influence on the mind and heart, on the whole man. Man, being composed of body and soul, is so moved and stimulated by the external solemnities of festivals, and such is the variety and beauty of the sacred rites, that he drinks more deeply of divine doctrine, assimilates it into his very system, and makes it a source of strength for progress in his spiritual life.

Besides, we know from the pages of history that such festivals were instituted in the course of the ages, one after another, as the needs or utility of the people of Christ seemed to demand; as, for instance, when men needed to be strengthened in face of a common danger, or to be guarded from insidious heresies, or to be urged to the pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing. Thus, in the earlier ages of the Christian era, when Christians were being cruelly persecuted, the cult of the martyrs was begun, in order, says St. Augustine, that the feasts of the martyrs might incite men to martyrdom.[7] The liturgical honors that were afterwards paid to confessors, virgins, and widows had wonderful results in an increased zest for virtue amongst the faithful, necessary even in times of peace. But especially fruitful were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed Virgin. As a result of them the Christian people grew, not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever present advocate, but also in their love for her, as a Mother bequeathed them by their Redeemer. Not least among the benefits that have resulted from the public and legitimate devotion to the Mother of God and the saints, is the constant victory of the Church at all times over heresy and error. And in this matter We may well admire the Providence of God, Who brings good even out of evil, and has from time to time allowed the faith and piety of men to slacken, and Catholic truth to be assailed by false doctrine, with the result, however, that truth shone forth resplendent with a new light, and men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, made greater efforts to higher grades of sanctity.

The festivals that have been introduced into the liturgy in more recent times have had a similar origin, and have been attended with similar results. When reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament had grown cold the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, and the solemn procession and prayers of eight days duration had the effect of bringing men once more to render public homage to the Lord. The Feast the Sacred Heart of Jesus was introduced when men had become dispirited and despondent, as the result of the sad and gloomy severity of Jansenism, when their hearts had grown cold, being deterred from the love of God and trust in salvation.

secularism: the evil of the present day

If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall worship Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infests society. We refer to the plague of secularism, its errors and impious activities. This evil thing you know, Venerable Brethren, has not come to the surface in one day. Its seeds have been long developing within the vitals of nations. First, Christ’s authority to rule over all nations was denied. The Church’s right, which follows on that of Christ, to teach the human race, to make laws, to rule over peoples unto their eternal salvation, was denied. Then, by degrees, the religion of Christ was put on a footing with false religions, and placed ignominiously in the same category with them. It was next put under civil authority, and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some went further, and desired to have a natural religion, mere natural instinct, set up in place of divine religion. There were not wanting states that thought they could dispense with God, and make their religion consist of impiety and neglect of God. Bitter, indeed, are the fruits that this revolt of individuals and of nations against Christ has borne so frequently and for such long periods. The disastrous consequences of this revolt We lamented in the Encyclical Ubi Arcano, and today We iterate the lament the seeds of discord have been sown on every side; enmities and rivalries between nations have been enkindled, and are a great hindrance to the cause of peace, a spirit of insatiable greed is abroad that often wears the mask of public spirit and patriotism; and following on it are discord and division between citizens, and a blind unrestrained self-love which makes private advantage and private gain its one aim and universal standard. We see, too, that peace in the home has been utterly ruined, because men forget or neglect their duties; that the stability of family life has been undermined; society, in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the road to ruin. We earnestly hope that the Feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior.

It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of them, however, do not seem to enjoy the social status or to wield the influence befitting those who bear the torch of truth. This drawback may, perhaps be due to slowness and timidity on the part of good people, who shrink from contest or offer but a weak resistance; with the result that the enemies of the Church become more and more reckless and more daring in their attacks. But if the faithful would generally understand that it is their duty to fight bravely and continually, under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would endeavor to win over to our Lord those who are estranged from Him or know Him not, and would valiantly defend His rights.

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the Feast of the Kingship of Christ is very much calculated to fix men’s attention on, and remedy in some way, this public revolt from Christ that may be traced to secularism, to the great ruin of society. While nations insult the sweet name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we ought all the more loudly proclaim it, and all the more universally affirm the privileges of His royal dignity and power.

We find, too, that ever since the end of the last century the way has been well and happily prepared for the institution of this festival. It is well known that this devotion has been the subject of much sound and learned discussion, books dealing with it in many languages having been published throughout the whole world. That pious custom, too, practiced by innumerable families, of dedicating and surrendering themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, is an acknowledgment of the kingship and sovereign rule of Christ. And not only families have observed this practice, but nations and kingdoms as well. In fact, the whole human race was, at the instance of Pope Leo XIII, in the year 1900, consecrated to the divine Heart. It should be remarked also that the frequent Eucharistic Congresses which are held in our age, have had a wonderful influence towards solemnly sanctioning Christ’s kingly power over human, society. For thus the people of each diocese, district, or nation, people from the whole world, are summoned together to venerate and worship Christ the King, hidden under the veil of the Eucharistic species. And thus, by means of sermons preached at meetings and in the churches, by public adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and by solemn processions, they have an opportunity of cordially saluting Christ as the King given them by the Father. It may, indeed, with justice be said that it is divine inspiration that prompts the people of Christ to bring forth Jesus from His silent hiding place in the sacred edifice, and escort in triumph through the streets of cities Him whom impious men refused to receive when He came unto His own, and thus restore to Him in full His kingly rights.

The Holy Year now coming to its close affords the best possible opportunity of fulfilling the intention We have mentioned, for now God, in His great kindness, has showered on the minds and hearts of the faithful heavenly blessings that surpass all understanding; He has either enriched them once more with His grace, or, stimulating them anew to strive for higher gifts, He has strengthened their purpose on the way of virtue. Whether, therefore. We consider the many petitions that have been addressed to Us, or whether We consider the events of this great Year of Jubilee, We have every reason for thinking that the desired moment is at length at hand for proclaiming that Christ is to be worshipped by a special and proper Feast as King of the whole human race. For in this year, as We have said in the beginning of this Letter, the divine King, truly wonderful in His saints, has been gloriously magnified, for a new company of His soldiers have been elevated to the honors of saints. In this year, too, men have seen strange sights—one might say, works—so that all were in a position to admire the victories won for Christ by the heralds of the Gospel, in the extension of His kingdom. In this year, finally, by celebrating the centenary of the Council of Nicea, We have commemorated the defense of the doctrine that the Incarnate Word is consubstantial with the Father; and hereon is based Christ’s sovereign power over all men.

the feast of christ’s kingship

on last sunday of october

therefore, by our apostolic authority we institute the feast of the kingship of our lord jesus christ: to be observed yearly throughout the whole world, on the last Sunday of the month of October—the Sunday, that is, that immediately precedes the Feast of All Saints. We prescribe also that the dedication of mankind to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Our predecessor of holy memory. Pope Pius X, commanded to be renewed yearly, be made annually on that day. This year, however, We wish that this dedication be observed on the thirty-first day of the present month, on which day We Ourselves shall celebrate pontifically in honor of the Kingship of Christ, and shall command that this same dedication be performed in Our presence. We think we cannot better or in more fitting manner bring the Holy Year to its close, or better signify Our own gratitude and, We may add, the gratitude of the whole Catholic world, to Christ, the immortal King of the ages, for the blessings showered on Us, on the Church, and on the whole Catholic world during this holy time.

It is unnecessary to explain to you at any great length, Venerable Brethren, Our reason for commanding a special Feast of Christ’s Kingship to be celebrated, as distinct from those other Feasts that signify, in a manner, and celebrate His kingly dignity. We need only remark that, whereas in all the Feasts of our Lord the material object of worship is Christ, the formal object, however, is something entirely distinct from His royal power and title. We have commanded its observance on a Sunday in order that not only the clergy may perform their duties to the divine King by celebration of Mass and by reciting their Office, but that the laity, too, free from their daily occupations, may, in a spirit of holy joy, give ample testimony of their obedience and subjection to Christ. The last Sunday of October seemed the most convenient for the celebration of this Feast, because it approximately marks the end of the liturgical year, and so the solemn festival of Christ’s Kingship will be a fitting completion and consummation of the mysteries of the life of Jesus already commemorated during the year; and before we celebrate the glory of all the Saints, His glory will be proclaimed and extolled. Who triumphs in all the Saints and Elect. Accordingly, Venerable Brethren, let it be your duty and your task to have sermons preached on fixed dates before the annual celebration of this Feast to the people of every parish, so that they may be thoroughly instructed in the nature of this Feast, its meaning and importance, and that they may be warned so to direct and regulate their lives as becomes faithful and loyal subjects of the divine King.

In conclusion. Venerable Brethren, We wish to state briefly the blessings We confidently hope will accrue to the Church and society, and to the faithful individually, from this public veneration of Christ as King.

By the honors thus offered to the Sovereign Kingship men must needs be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to full freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that, in fulfilling the task committed to her by God, of teaching, ruling and guiding to eternal happiness all who belong to the Kingdom of Christ, she cannot be dependent on any external power. Furthermore, the state is bound to give similar liberty to the Orders and Communities of religious of either sex, who give most valuable help to the Pastors of the Church, and labor most strenuously for the extension and establishment of the Kingdom of Christ. By their sacred vows they fight against the threefold concupiscence of the world, and by their very profession of a more perfect life they make that holiness, which the divine Founder ordained as a distinguishing mark of the Church, shine forth in brilliancy before the eyes of all with everlasting and daily increased splendor.

The very celebration of the Feast, too, by its annual recurrence, will serve to remind nations that not only private individuals but state officials and rulers are bound by the obligation of worshipping Christ publicly and rendering Him obedience. They will be thus led to reflect on that last judgment, in which Christ, Who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will severely revenge such insults; for His kingly dignity demands that the constitution of the whole state should conform to the divine Commandments and Christian principles, whether in the making of laws, the administration of justice, or in the molding of the minds of the young on sound doctrine and upright morals.

The faithful, moreover, by diligently meditating on these matters, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to fashion their own lives on the true Christian ideal. For if to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if mankind, through being purchased by His most precious Blood, are, by a new title, so to speak, subjected to His jurisdiction; and if this power that Christ wields is exercised over human nature in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from His all-embracing sovereign sway. He must reign in the mind of man, which ought to assent with perfect submission and firm unwavering belief to the revealed truths and doctrines of Christ. He must reign in man’s will, which ought to obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in the heart of man, which ought to reject the cravings of nature and love God above all things and cleave to Him alone. He must reign in the body and in its members, which ought to serve as instruments towards the interior sanctification of our souls, or as the Apostle Paul says of instruments of justice unto God (Rom. 6:13).

If all these considerations are presented to the faithful for their thorough inquiry and meditation they will prove great aids to perfection. It is Our earnest prayer, Venerable Brethren, that those without the fold may seek after and accept unto their salvation the sweet yoke of Christ; and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the Faith, may bear that yoke, not with complaint, but with joy, with love, and with devotion; that having regulated our lives in accordance with the laws of the divine Kingdom, we may reap the good fruits in rich abundance, and, counted by Christ as good and faithful servants, we be made partakers of eternal bliss and glory with Him in His heavenly kingdom.

Accept, Venerable Brethren, this devout wish as token of Our paternal love, now that the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ is drawing near, and receive the Apostolic Benediction as a pledge of divine blessings, which, with loving heart. We impart to you, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy and people.

Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, on the eleventh day of the month of December in the Holy Year nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.

Pope Pius XI

[1]  Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. Can. 21.

[2]  Hymn for the Epiphany.

[3]  Enc. Annum Sanctum, May 25, 1899.

[4]  St. Aug., Ep. ad Macedanium, iii.

[5]  Enc. Ubi Arcano.

[6]  Enc. Annum Sanctum, May 25, 1899.

[7]  Sermo 47, de Sanctis.

Appendix I

Letter from Cardinal Gasparri

to Rev. Father A. Philippe

The Vatican,

Nov. 18th, 1917

No. 84112

Secretary of State to His Holiness,

To Rev. Father A. Philippe, C.SS.R.,

From your letter of November 9th, our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XV, has learned with very great satisfaction of the recent foundation of “A League of prayer, sacrifice, and good works for the return of nations and peoples, and of the whole social order, to God and to His Christ, through Holy Church.”

Inspired by a veritable sacerdotal zeal, by a profound devotion to the Church, and by a desire to co-operate in the extension of the reign of Christ, in souls and in society as a whole, your noble and generous appeal answers now more than ever to the crying necessities of the times.

On the morrow of the trials, sufferings and unspeakable calamities which peoples and nations have borne during the most terrible of wars; following such an epoch of strife and hatred, at the moment when profound social transformations are about to appear, at this very time, when so many errors and destructive principles persist, perverting intelligences and the social order in general, directing their attacks on the supernatural life and on the Church, there is a duty incumbent on each and every one, to help in restoring to nations as well as to individuals that peace and happiness for which everybody longs and which can only be had in the possession of truth.

You have very justly remarked that justice, charity, and peace, which are the objects of human aspiration, cannot be assured to humanity, without the return of individuals, families, nations, and peoples to Christ and to His law, as well as to the Gospel and the Church, wherein alone are found the deposit of His doctrine and of His grace.

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of all men throughout the ages, must be the sovereign Ruler of individuals, nations, and countries, for all power is given to Him in heaven and on earth, and the nations have been given to Him as inheritance.

Now the Church has been commissioned by our Lord Himself to carry out His work. Its mission through the ages is to procure the sanctification and salvation of souls, while at the same time it provides for the greatest possible wellbeing of nations and of peoples, by establishing the reign of truth, justice, charity and peace.

The Holy Father congratulates you on the very praiseworthy and very pious thought which has inspired you to found a League so much needed and so salutary. He desires that all Catholics worthy of the name should join the League. These, by the example of sincere Christian lives, both in public and in private, as well as by their prayers and good works would draw down God’s blessing, hasten the return of society to true principles and bring about the restoration of the order of society in Jesus Christ through His Church.

For these reasons, His Holiness very willingly authorizes the association to assume the title: “Apostolic League for the return of nations, of countries and of the whole fabric of society to God and to His Christ, through Holy Church.”

To encourage the Clergy and the faithful to join the League and promote its interests the Sovereign Pontiff has deigned to accord to the members the following favors: [cf. Chap, xiii.]

(Signed) P. CARD. GASPARRI

Appendix II

An Ríoghacht

(The League of the Kingship of Christ)

“When once men recognize, both in private and public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, Peace and harmony.” Pius XI in the Encyclical on the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

I: Origin

On the occasion of the first celebration of the Feast of Christ’s Kingship, 31st October, 1926, a group of Catholics resident in Dublin who had been holding regular weekly meetings for six months before, formed an Association which they named An Rioghacht. A provisional constitution was drafted and a governing committee appointed. The founders included a number of priests, secular and regular. The organization has grown and now includes a number of affiliated branches and several school branches.

II: Objects

The League aims at doing in Ireland work on somewhat similar lines to that done by the Volksverein and kindred Catholic associations in Germany and other countries.

It is, in other words, a Society for Catholic social study and action. Hence its objects are:

(a)  To propagate among Irish Catholics a better knowledge of Catholic social principles.

(b)  To strive for the effective recognition of these principles in Irish public life.

(c)  To promote Catholic social action.

Among the means adopted or proposed by the League for attaining these objects, the following may be specially mentioned:

1. The establishment of study centers, where the members can work through a systematic course of social science under competent lecturers.

2. The organization, especially in colleges and secondary schools, of branches for juniors, for the purpose of arousing interest in the subject of Catholic organization and reconstruction.

3. Public lectures.

4. The organization of summer schools for the training of members.

5. The publication of pamphlets and books, as well as articles in current reviews and magazines. The League hopes also to have soon its own weekly journal, and so to help in the establishment of a fully equipped Irish Catholic press.

6. Independent research work on social matters by the members of the League.

7. The encouragement and support of such other Catholic organizations as are engaged in works of social betterment of a constructive nature such as the promotion of Catholic libraries, co-operative credit societies, home industries, after-care of boys and girls, etc.

8. The organization, after a time, with the sanction and help of the hierarchy, of a Catholic Social Congress.

III: Need for Such An Organization

In every country inhabited by the European race a relentless war is now being waged, openly and covertly, by highly organized anti-Christian forces, not merely against the Catholic Church but even against Christian morality and the whole Christian ideal of life. This war, backed by all the resources which limitless wealth can supply, is carried on through the press and the cinema and other associations of all kinds, some of which are openly anti-Christian while others, professedly, neutral, are not less dangerous. Ireland is by no means immune from attack. To counteract this widespread anti-Christian movement, fidelity to their religious duties on the part of the faithful, though essential, will not suffice. Two other things are necessary, viz.:

(a)  A widespread knowledge of Catholic social principles and of their application to public life, and

(b)  Catholic organization of the laity.

It is a fact, which has been stated publicly by some of the Mexican Bishops, that the want of Catholic organization in Mexico has been in large part the occasion of the troubles of that country. The Mexican Catholics, who form the overwhelming majority of the nation, neglected to organize themselves, and so fell victims to a minority hostile to the Catholic faith.

Leo XIII and succeeding Pontiffs have repeatedly insisted on a sound knowledge of Catholic social principles and on lay organization as the pressing needs of the hour. These repeated exhortations of the Holy See have borne fruit in most countries of Europe and America. There is no part of contemporary history more striking than the rise of the great Catholic lay organizations during the past forty years. These organizations are already an immense force in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland.

In Ireland there is a very special need of such organizations. Although the people are predominantly Catholic, and for the most part faithful to their religious obligations in private life, the whole framework of the society in which they live is un-Catholic. The civic institutions and social organization of the country, which for more than three centuries had been dominated by a non-Catholic or anti-Catholic foreign influence, is today mainly secular. The country has lost touch with the traditional Catholic culture of Europe. The English literature upon which the mind of the people is largely formed is predominantly Protestant. The books and papers which circulate amongst them are too often degrading, mostly saturated with Naturalism, and frequently marked by a strong anti-Catholic bias. The result is that the Irish Catholic nation is in many ways more exposed to un-Catholic and even un-Christian influences than any other Catholic people in Christendom. In such circumstances, and in the face of the immoral and anti-Christian campaign above referred to, the urgent need in Ireland of an organization such as An Rioghacht cannot be too strongly emphasized.

IV: Character of the League

The League, while not a religious association nor attached to any religious confraternity, is definitely Catholic in membership as well as in aim. It assumes as the basis of its program the fundamental laws of Christian society and the principles of Catholic social action, as laid down in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII, and succeeding Pontiffs. It is not associated with any political party, and takes no part in political controversy or activities, except where and in so far as the objects of the League (viz., Catholic social interests) are involved. While taking for granted the right of the Irish nation to its integrity and independence, the League is not directly concerned with that aspect of the national life.

Members of the League are expected not merely to work gratis for its objects, but even to be ready when occasion occurs to make reasonable material sacrifices, from motives of religion and patriotism, which are the driving forces in all the League’s activities. Hence, neither the League itself nor any branch thereof concerns itself with the temporal affairs of its members.

None of the funds may be used for any purpose that does not come within the direct objects of the League, nor for the payment of any member for doing the work of the League, nor, without the special sanction of the Ard-Chomhairle, even for defraying the personal expenses incurred by members in doing such work.

Although the business of the League may be conducted in Irish or in English, according to the choice of each branch. The public prayers are always, where possible, said in Irish. All meetings are opened and concluded with prayer.

The supreme governing authority of the League is the Ard-Fheis, or General Congress, composed exclusively of those who have worked through the prescribed course of lectures on Catholic social science. The Ard-Chomhairle or governing council (elected by the Ard-Fheis), which meets at least once a week, carries on the ordinary work of the League.

The ordinary members meet weekly in their respective branches for lectures and discussions. The lecturer is usually a priest. A definitely arranged program is followed, and books for reading or reference are suggested. The members who have not completed the prescribed course are expected to attend as regularly as possible, and to supplement the lectures by reading and study. From time to time the ordinary routine of the weekly meetings is varied by the reading of a paper on some mattes of social interests by one of the members, followed by a discussion. Subjects are chosen to suggest some definite course of social action. Thus, papers have been read on the press, the cinema, the Poor Law in Ireland, Catholic Social Activities in Belgium and Holland, Fascism, Catholic Labor Associations, etc.

Members pay an enrollment fee of 2s. 6d., and a monthly subscription is to cover the working expenses of the League. All practical Catholics who have reached sixteen years of age are eligible for membership. persons who approve of the work of the League, but do not wish to become members, may assist it by contributing to its funds, subscribing to its publications, etc.

Further information, copies of the Constitution, and other literature dealing with the work of the League may be obtained upon application to the Hon. Secretary, Mr. P. Waldron, 34 Belmont Avenue, Donnybrook, Dublin, S.E.I.