354

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

tion of His beauty in her, our dim eyes grow accustomed to good­
ness, until at last they can gaze lovingly upon the full splendor of
Christ Himself, who with the Holy Spirit will lead us to the Father.
To give Mary apostles who would co-operate in her mission of
bringing back to Christ not only individuals but the very social
order itself, Chaminade recruited sodalists consecrated to her by
promise, “sodalist-religious” consecrated by vow and finally totally
consecrated religious, living a community life like that of the primi­
tive Church by uniting harmoniously’ all categories of apostles—
priests, teaching brothers, and working brothers.
Thus, the Marianists, having now taken their place among the
century-old American institutes, stand as a living testimonial to
the power of consecration to Mary for the active apostolate, refut­
ing by their continued existence and activity the contention that
Mary’s is a call only to contemplation and therefore that Fatima is
opposed to the active life. The ideal of the Marianists as here set
forth clearly indicates that consecration to Mary involves a con­
templation which springs into action, forming a perfect balance be­
tween these two complementary, not opposed, forms of Christian
life.
Fr. Chaminade saw the necessity of this consecration for the
apostolate a hundred years before the Fatima message. Shall we
who have been blessed with this new message, and with the miracu­
lous seal that forms a perfect approach to the modern materialistic
mind, overlook its importance for Catholic Action ?
Robert Knopp, S.M.

William Cullen McBride High School
St. Louis, Missouri

Mission Intention

AMERICANISM” REVIEWED BY ABBE
FELIX KLEIN
The publication of the autobiographical volume of Abbé Felix
Klein this year under the title of L’Américanisme, Une Hérésie
Fantome (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1949) gives us a new account of
the most notable controversy in American Catholic history. Klein
was unwittingly at the center of the controversy and takes this
opportunity to review the whole affair and with great satisfaction
to make the charges of heresy ridiculous. The controversy has two
distinct phases, the story of the controversy in France and the
strange adaptation of that controversy in this country.

There were certain tendencies in Catholicism in the United
States which laid the foundation for the controversy in this coun­
try. These tendencies manifested a certain progressiveness which
could properly be called the real Americanism. Its manifestations
could probably be seen in the defense of the Knights of Labor, in
the attempts to work out a solution of the Catholic school question,
in the exchange of civilities with non-Catholics in the World Con­
gress of Religions in 1893, in the condemnation of Cahenslyism
and in the general policy of Americanization under the direction of
Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop John Ireland. The “progres­
sive” group of American bishops, led chiefly by Archbishop Ireland
and Bishop John Keane, the first rector of the Catholic University,
and their friends, were filled with optimism about the future of
Catholicism in the United States. Nowhere was this optimism
better expressed than in the publications of Archbishop Ireland
when he spoke of “The Future of Catholics in America” and on
“The Church and the Age.” For him, not only was the American
ideal the highest ever proposed but it would attain its fullest glory
when America had become Catholic. Already Catholicism was
making great strides along this path and it was necessary that
the Church abandon its old ways of defensive action, go into the
outside world, enter into the social and economic problems of the
day and show that there was no conflict between democracy and
religion or between science and the Church.

356

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

beyond the seas to Rome itself. In this country the German bishops
did not take too well the rejection of the Memorials of Peter Paul
Cahensly, asking for greater German membership in the American
hierarchy, and the German press kept up a constant attack on all
measures of Americanization. They were joined by Archbishop
Michael Corrigan and his guide and protector, Bishop Bernard
McQuaid of Rochester, and by Bishop Richard Gilmour and his
successor Bishop Ignatius Horstman of Cleveland, who opposed
Ireland in the school question and in certain political affairs. In
Rome these more conservative prelates had friends in Fr. Salvatore
Brandi, S.J., editor of the Civilta Cattolica, Cardinal Camillo Mazzella, S.J., both of whom had lived for some time in the United
States, and in Cardinal Francesco Satolli, the former Apostolic
Delegate to the United States, who had once been friendly to Ire­
land but who had returned to Rome with feelings described as
unfriendly to the “progressive” bishops. A series of events brought
the two groups into conflict in the last decade of the century. Two
leaders of the German groups in this country were Fr. Joseph Pohle
and Fr. Joseph Schroeder, two German theologians whom Keane
had recruited for the first faculty of the Catholic University. In
1894 Pohle had announced his resignation and his return to Ger­
many in a letter accusing the University of American intolerance
and of heretical ideas. Schroeder remained but continued to criti­
cize the American bishops. In 1896 the Holy Father, Pope Leo
XIII, sent a letter announcing that according to the custom in
papal universities Keane’s term as rector of the Catholic Univer­
sity should be terminated and a new rector appointed. Keane ac­
cepted the letter with great humility and refused at first the offer
of an office of honor in Rome. But the enemies of Ireland and
Keane began to boast that the letter of the Pope was really a form
of criticism of the progressives, and there were rumors that Ireland
would next be called upon to resign his see. So persistent was this
rumor that Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, the papal Secretary of
State, was forced to deny that the Holy Father had any intention
of asking for Ireland’s resignation.
In the meantime, two other departures of note took place from
the University. Abbé George Peries, a canon law professor closely
associated with Pohle and Schroeder in their opposition to Keane
and Ireland, had sent a threatening letter to Bishop Horstman and

‘■AMERICANISM” REVIEWED

357

the episcopal committee of the University should they dare to make
any charges against him. The bishops immediately demanded his
resignation. He returned to France, where he furnished newspapers
with accounts unfriendly to Archbishop Ireland and Keane. Sub­
sequently the bishops demanded the resignation of Dr. Schroeder.
He demurred and obtained support for his cause in Rome, but the
bishops refused to change their decision and he went back to Ger­
many where he was received with honor.
During all this time there was available in the bookstores of this
country a biography of Fr. Isaac Hecker, the founder of the Con­
gregation of St. Paul, or the Paulists, by Father Walter Elliot,
C.S.P., published in 1891. Although it had the imprimatur of
Archbishop Corrigan and an introduction by Archbishop Ireland
it received no unusual attention in this country. In France, how­
ever, it had attracted the attention of Count de Chabrol, who had
visited the country in 1867-68 and had met Fr. Hecker. Count de
Chabrol had admired greatly both the new country and the saintly
Paulist. He was delighted with the biography and suggested to the
publisher LeCoffre that it be published in a translation which his
friend, Mlle, de Guèrines, of Clermont-Ferrand, had prepared at
his request. The publisher agreed to examine the manuscript and
sent it to a young clergyman consultor for the firm, Abbé Felix
Klein, for his opinion. That was in the early part of 1897.
Klein liked the book and suggested that the translation be im­
proved, some excessive verbiage be taken out and some phrases
be replaced with phrases more suitable for the French public. He
was too busy at that time to make these changes himself but when
the publisher threatened to drop the book, Chabrol and M. Paul
Thureau-Dangin persuaded him to undertake the task. The book
also needed a preface, since Ireland’s introduction was for Ameri­
can readers and Klein prepared a preface of about thirty-five pages.
In those pages he pointed out the salient character of Hecker, his
spiritual doctrines and his new messages for the modern world. He
compared Flecker to Lincoln, yet quoted praise for his spirituality
from Pius IX, Archbishop Ireland and Cardinal Newman. He
compared Hecker's journal to the Confessions of St. Augustine
and the writings of St. Teresa. Further he called him a doctor, a
leader, in the new paths which the faithful were called to tread.
Klein said Hecker’s Americanism was really not exclusively
American. Hecker had recognized the new state of the human mind

358

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

in the modern world and had found in his Catholicism the answer
to all these new higher propensities of the human mind, Hecker
had found the modern solution in the submission of the individual
soul to the Holy Spirit. AVhile warning the faithful that there was
no difference between the interior direction of the Holy Ghost and
the external guidance in the Church, Hecker stressed this indi­
vidual guidance and liberty. He had praised the Anglo-Saxon
adherence to interior virtues. He explained the defeats of Catholi­
cism in southern Europe by their adherence to the defensive ways
of the sixteenth century. Instead of the passive virtues of that
defensive period there was need of active virtues. “Our age is not
an age of martyrdom, nor an age of hermits, nor a monastic age....
Our age lives in its busy marts, in counting rooms, in workshops,
in homes, and in the varied relations that form human society, and
it is into these that sanctity is to be introduced.” “In Father Hecker,”
Klein said, “we have not merely a man of our own time but a man
of the future.” The preface was dated June 5, 1897, the vigil of
Pentecost. Shortly after the appearance of the translation an essay
by Count de Chabrol, “Un Prêtre américain, le Révérend Père
Hecker.” although already written before the publication, appeared
in the Correspondent of May 25 and June 10. The book sold
quickly and before long a second edition was issued. Within a
short time there had been seven editions of the French biography.
The comments on the book were generally friendly. Laudatory
review’s appeared in the Journal des Débats and Temps. L’Univers
and even German publications praised the book. Then in August,
1897, during the Fourth International Congress of Catholic intel­
lectuals at Fribourg, from Aug. 16 to the 20th, at the ninth session
Monsignor Denis O’Connell spoke of Fr. Hecker, praising him
for his Americanism. Bishop Turinaz of Nancy had been unable
to hear the paper but arriving later at the same session he proceeded
to attack the character of Fr. Hecker, charging that he was trying
to introduce Protestant ideas into the Church. Abbé Klein felt
impelled then to defend Fr. Hecker and to point out that the
heresies charged against Hecker, particularly that he believed in
the direct submission of the soul to the Holy Ghost, did not con­
stitute the real meaning of Fr. Hecker’s teaching. O’Connell’s
paper was intended to clear Hecker’s name from certain false no­
tions that had begun to be attached to him by some reviewers of

' AMERICANISM” REVIEWED

359

the French biography. He distinguished two kinds of Americanism,
one which concerned political affairs, and in this O’Connell praised
the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The other was ecclesiastical, and concerning that Americanism
O’Connell pointed out the liberty of the Church in the United
States as compared to the enslavement of the Church in countries
where Church and State were united.

It so happened that there had been a controversy going on in
France for sometime concerning the proper relations of the Church
to the French Republic. Pope Leo XIII in his letter to the French
bishops, Au milieu des sollicitudes, in February, 1892, had given
support to those who favored greater co-operation with the Re­
public. That same year Archbishop Ireland, coming directly from
Pope Leo, had spoken in Paris in June praising the growth of the
Church in democratic United States and urging greater co-opera­
tion by the Church with the spirit of the age. Thus the word
“Americanism” had already acquired a meaning unfriendly to the
more conservative members of the French hierarchy and clergy,
and it was not long before this group began a full scale attack on
the life of Hecker and the errors of Americanism. In the van of
this attack was the ex-professor, Abbé Peries, writing under the
name of St. Clement, and Abbé Charles Maignen, a priest of the
Congregation of the Brothers of St. V’incent De Paul, who had
fought the progressive French Catholics, especially Count De Mun,
under the name of Martel. The articles appeared in the conserva­
tive journal, La Vérité Française, in the spring of 1898.
In the meantime, Abbé Klein had been told by his friend, M.
Ollé-Laprune, that Père Coubé, S.J., would preach at the Church
of Saint-Sulpice on Sunday, Nov. 7, 1897, on a subject that would
be of interest. After speaking of St. Charles Borromeo the speaker
attacked four groups of persons who seemed to endanger the
Church. They were : those American bishops who had participated
in the Parliament of Religions at Chicago, those who had accepted
the article of M. Brunetière on the failure of science, M. George
Blondel, who advocated a new apologetics, and Fr. Hecker with
his Americanism. The following Sunday, Père Gaudeau, S.J.,
preached a similar attack in the Church of Saint-Clotilde. The
next Sunday, Nov. 21. another Jesuit attacked the same errors in

360

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Sacré Coeur. The controversy began to occupy space in religious
periodicals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and even Rome.

When the series of articles in La Vérité had been completed they
were gathered into book form and published under the title, Le
Père Hecker est-il un Saint? The book was divided into four cam­
paigns. The first two included the Parliament of Religions in Chi­
cago and the attempt by Abbé Charbonnel to have a second con­
gress in Paris in lfX)O. Charbonnel left the Church when permis­
sion for this second congress was refused, proclaiming himself an
“Americanist.” The third campaign was the publication of the life
of Hecker. The fourth campaign was entitled “Under the Walls
of Rome.” The book was based only partly on the biography of
Hecker. It used Klein’s preface, some other writings of Klein, a
few passages from the writings of Ireland, Keane and O’Connell,
the writings of Charbonnel and added useful passages from the
French version of the biography, w'hich thus acquired a meaning at
variance with the ideals of Fr. Hecker. Maignen was attacking the
democratic clergy. He accused them of proposing a new apologetics
which would limit external submission to the Church, of advocating
a dangerous liberalism in dealing with non-Catholics, of proposing
a complete separation of Church and State, of opposing the prac­
tice of evangelical virtues and the vows of religious orders and of
preferring the active virtues over the passive and natural virtues
over supernatural virtues. Failing to get an imprimatur for his
book from the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris. Maignen obtained it
from the Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr. Albert Lepidi, O.P.
Abbé Klein was taken ill at this time and consequently did not
answer his critics and, he tells us, when he began to recover his
friends entreated him not to lower himself to the level of his at­
tackers by making an answer. The controversy was getting so in­
tense that Cardinal Richard of Paris wrote to Klein asking him
not to issue any new editions of the biography. Archbishop Keane
and Cardinal Gibbons protested to Pope Leo XIII the granting of
the imprimatur to the book by the Master of the Sacred Palace but
do not seem to have effected too much, except with Cardinal Rampolla, who was their friend. The next move of the conservatives
was to send the biography to the Congregation of the Index to
have it placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
In the meantime the controversy in France raged hotter and

‘ AMERICANISM’’ REVIEWED

361

hotter. Abbé Klein, in hL autobiography, notes that the word
Americanism in the conservative press began to mean every kind
of radical doctrine. The liberal press, such as the Correspondent,
answered in kind. In Belgium, Père A. J. Delattre, S.J., published
an attack entitled Un Catholicism Américain and finally Fr. Hyppolite Martin, the Jesuit Superior General, published an attack in
Études Religieuses on July 20, 1898. Abbé Klein notes that Fr.
Martin was a Spaniard and felt bitterly the effect of the SpanishAmerican War. In Rome Fr. Salvatore Brandi, S.J., published
Américanisme, riposta a un articulo dell’ “Opinione” sul P. Hecker,
in which he criticized Opinione and other liberal papers of Rome
for their favorable comments on the life of Fr. Hecker. Maignen’s
book was translated into English but could not find an American
firm to publish it. It was printed in England and offered for sale
by Arthur Preuss of the Review of St. Louis, who had been a con­
stant critic of Ireland and the Americanization programs.
The controversy had become so bitter that the Holy Father
appointed a commission to study the matter. The commission was
headed by Cardinals Satolli and Mazzella, who had been in America
but who were known to be unfriendly to the progressive group of
bishops. Brandi’s pamphlet had indicated that a condemnation of
the doctrines could be expected. Soon similar word reached the
United States. This news came as a surprise to Archbishop Ire­
land, who had been assured of the contrary, and he hastened to
Rome. Cardinal Gibbons sent a cablegram to Rome protesting any
condemnation, but the message arrived too late. The Cardinals
had given the Pope an unfavorable report. The Holy Father took
their report under consideration and softened it sufficiently to indi­
cate that the doctrines were not attributed to any actual persons and
issued it on Jan. 22, 1899, under the title, Testem benevolentiae.
Rampolla wrote to Gibbons that his protest had arrived too late
and that the Pope had been forced to act to prevent a more serious
division within the French Church.
The letter indicated that on the occasion of the publication of the
French biography of Hecker certain doctrines had arisen which the
Holy Father thought should be condemned. The main error was
that in the new age the Church should relax her former severity
and make approach to the Church easier, now that the Vatican
Council had made the Church secure by the decree of papal infal-

362

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

libility. Based on this false premise certain other false doctrines
were being proposed, such as, that external guidance of the Church
should be set aside for direct intervention of the Holy Ghost in this
new age ; that greater importance should be given to natural vir­
tues as better fitted for the problems of the age ; that, dividing vir­
tues into active and passive, active virtues were needed in the new
age; that the vows of religious were alien to the modern world;
and, finally, that the Church must devise a new method for winning
back those outside the fold. The Holy Father did insist that he in
no way wished to condemn the political theories, laws or customs of
the United States.
Abbé Klein immediately submitted to Cardinal Richard. In his
new account Klein expresses the thought that his hasty submission
made it appear that he felt guilty of the heresies. Actually, he felt
that the charges were phantom heresies raised up by the conserva­
tive French clergy to offset the effect of American Catholic progress
and the trend toward co-operation with the French Republic. Arch­
bishop Ireland, although he later admitted that he did not enjoy the
trend of events, publicly thanked the Holy Father for the letter,
saying that at no time had he ever held the doctrines condemned in
the Apostolic letter. Keane wrote in a similar manner. Gibbons
wrote that no Catholic instructed in his religion held the doctrines
condemned, but did not give his letter to the press. Abbé Klein
published in his autobiography7 a letter received from Bishop
Thomas O’Gorman of Sioux Falls in March, 1900, in which
O’Gorman says that there -were at that time fourteen other arch­
bishops in the United States besides Ireland. Three, Feehan of
Chicago, Hennessy of Dubuque, and Bourgade of Santa Fe, did
not reply to the Pope’s letter. Four thanked the Pope for his solici­
tude but did not indicate that the doctrine existed in the country.
They were Elder of Cincinnati, Chapelle of New Orleans, Christie
of Portland and Ryan of Philadelphia. Ryan of Philadelphia said
it could scarcely be found in the country. Four expressly denied
that it existed in the country: Riordan of San Francisco, Kain of
Saint Louis, Williams of Boston and Gibbons of Baltimore. Only
two indicated that the doctrines existed in the country: Corrigan
of New York and Katzer of Milwaukee. The New York letter
indicated that the heresies existed in germ but that the letter would
destrov them. Although sent in the names of all the bishops of the

“AMERICANISM” REVIEWED

363

New York province, some of the suffragans denied that they had
signed it. The Archbishop of Milwaukee claimed that the denial
of the American bishops that the heresy existed among them was a
Jansenistic denial. The Civil ta Cattolica published only some of
these letters and subscribed to the theory of the Milwaukee
archbishop.
In this country at the next meeting of the archbishops a motion
was made by Archbishop Ireland to investigate the charges of the
Milwaukee prelate but in the vote that followed the presiding vote
of Cardinal Gibbons prevented any action. Archbishop Katzer was
absent. In France the attempt of the conservatives to claim that
the Pope had condemned the democratic tendencies of the day was
denied by Pope Leo XIII in a letter to Archbishop Servonnet of
Bourges, dated May 25, 1899. Klein does not carry the controversy
beyond the condemnation. Archbishop Ireland returned to favor
with the Holy See but neither he nor Archbishop Corrigan ever
attained their much desired cardinalates. Abbé Klein does not give
much attention to the American phase of the controversy but he
does show quite well that the European controversialists over
Americanism were at war not over the Church in the United
States but actually over the Church in western Europe.
Thomas T. McAvoy, C.S.C.

The University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Ind.

Protectors of the Roman Basilicas
As the Lateran Basilica has been taken under the special protection
of the kings of France, and that of St. Paul’s is said to have owned
the English monarchs for its patrons, so the church of St. Mary Major
was identified for centuries with his most Catholic Majesty of Spain.
One visible sign of this connection may still be seen in the richlypanelled and ornamented roof. It is gilded, we are told, with the first
gold brought from America and presented to Pope Alexander VI by
Ferdinand and Isabella.
—Fr. Thurston, S.J., in The Holy Year of Jubilee (Westminster,
Maryland: The Newman Press, 1949), p. 205.