Ex his ad finitimas pestes ventum est, scilicet ad Communismum, ad Socialismum, ad Nihilismum, civilis hominum societatis teterrima portenta ac pene funera. Atqui tamen tantorum malorum vim nimis multa dilatare conantur, ac per speciem iuvandae multitudinis non exigua iam miseriarum incendia excitaverunt. Quae hic modo recordamur, ea nec ignota sunt nec valde longinqua.

Hoc vero est etiam gravius, quod non habent principes in tantis periculis remedia ad restituendam publicam disciplinam pacandosque animos satis idonea. Instruunt se auctoritate legum, eosque, qui rempublicam commovent, severitate poenarum coercendos putant. Recte quidem; sed tamen serio consideratum est, vim nullam poenarum futuram tantam, quae conservare respublicas sola possit. Metus enim, ut praeclare docet sanctus Thomas, est debile fundamentum; nam qui timore subduntur, si occurrat occasio qua possint impunitatem sperare, contra praesidentes insurgunt eo ardentius, quo magis contra voluntatem ex solo timore cohibebantur. Ac praeterea ex nimio timore plerique in desperationem incidunt: desperatio autem audacter ad quaelibet attentanda praecipitat.* Quae quam vera sint, satis experiendo perspeximus. Itaque obediendi altiorem et efficaciorem caussam adhibere necesse est, atque omnino statuere, nec legum esse posse fructuosam severitatem, nisi homines impellantur officio, salutarique metu Dei permoveantur. Id autem impetrare ab iis maxime religio potest, quae sua vi in animos influit, ipsasque hominum flectit voluntates, ut eis a quibus ipsi reguntur, non obsequio solum, sed etiam benevolentia et caritate adhaerescant, quae est in omni hominum coetu optima custos incolumitatis.

Quamobrem egregie Pontifices Romani communi utilitati servisse indicandi sunt, quod Novatorum frangendos semper curaverunt tumidos. inquietosque spiritus, ac persaepe monuerunt quantum ii sint civili etiam societati periculosi. Ad hanc rem digna, quae commemoretur, Clementis VII sententia est ad Ferdinandum Bohemiae et Hungariae regem: In hac fidei caussa tua etiam et ceterorum principum dignitas et utilitas inclusa est, cum non possit illa convelli quin vestrarum etiam rerum labefactationem secum trahat; quod clarissime in locis istis aliquot perspectum sit. Atque in eodem genere summa providentia et fortitudo enituit, Decessorum Nostrorum, praesertim autem Clementis XII, Benedicti XIV, Leonis XII, qui cum consequentibus temporibus pravarum doctrinarum pestis latius serperet, sectarumque audacia invalesceret, oppositu auctoritatis suae aditum illis intercludere conati sunt. Nos ipsi pluries denunciavimus quam gravia pericula impendeant, simulque indicavimus quae sit eorum propulsandorum ratio optima. Principibus ceterisque rerum publicarum moderatoribus praesidium religionis obtulimus, populosque hortati sumus ut summorum bonorum copia, quam Ecclesia suppeditat maxime uterentur. Id nunc agimus, ut ipsum illud praesidium, quo nihil est validius, sibi rursus oblatum principes intelligant: cosque vehementer in Domino hortamur, ut religionem tueantur, et, quod interest etiam reipublicae,

* De Regim. Princip. i. 1, cap. 10.

ea Ecclesiam libertate frui posse sinant, qua sine iniuria et communi pernicie privari non potest. Profecto Ecclesia Christi neque principibus potest esse suspecta, neque populis invisa. Principes quidem ipsa monet sequi iustitiam, nullaque in re ab officio declinare: at simul eorum roborat multisque rationibus adjuvat auctoritatem. Quae in genere rerum civilium versantur, ea in potestate supremoque imperio eorum esse agnoscit et declarat: in iis quorum iudicium, diversam licem ob caussam, ad sacram civilemque pertinet potestatem, vult existere inter utramque concordiam, cuius beneficio funestae utrique contentiones devitantur. Ad populos quod spectat, est Ecclesia saluti cunctorum hominum nata, eosque semper dilexit uti parens. Ea quippe est, quae caritate praeeunte mansuetudinem animis impertiit, humanitatem moribus, aequitatem legibus: atque honestae libertati nuspiam inimica tyrannicum dominatum semper detestari consuevit. Hunc, quae insita in Ecclesia est, bene merendi consuetudinem paucis praeclare expressit sanctus Augustinus: Docet (Ecclesia) reges prospicere populis, omnes populos se subdere regibus: ostendens quemadmodum et non omnibus caritas, et nulli debetur iniuria.*

His de caussis opera vestra, Venerabiles Fratres, valde utilis ac plane salutaris futura est, si industriam atque omnes, quae Dei munere in vestra sunt potestate, ad deprecanda societatis humanae vel pericula vel incommoda Nobiscum contuleritis. Cura ac providete, ut quae de imperio deque obediendi officio ab Ecclesia catholica praecipiuntur, ea homines et plane perspecta habeant, et ad vitam agendam diligenter utantur. Vobis auctoribus et magistris, saepe populi moneantur fugere vetitas sectas, a coniurationibus abhorrere, nihil seditiose agere: iidemque intelligant, qui Dei caussa parent imperantibus, eorum esse rationabile obsequium, generosam obedientiam. Quoniam vero Deus est, qui dat salutem regibus,† et concedit populis conquiescere in pulchritudine pacis et in tabernaculis fiduciae et in requie opulenta, Ipsum necesse est orare atque obsecrare, ut omnium mentes ad honestatem veritatemque flectat, iras compescat, optatam diu pacem tranquillitatemque orbi terrarum restituat.

Quo autem spes firmior sit impetrandi, deprecatores defensoresque salutis adhibeamus, Mariam Virginem magnam Dei parentem, auxilium christianorum, tutelam generis humani: S. Iosephum castissimum sponsum eius, cuius patrocinio plurimum universa Ecclesia confidit: Petrum et Paulum Principes Apostolorum custodes et vindices nominis christiani.

Interea divinorum munerum auspicem Vobis omnibus, Venerabiles Fratres, Clero et populo fidei vestrae commisso Apostolicam Benedictionem peramanter in Domino impertimus.

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum die XXIX Iunii A. MDCCCLXXXI, Pontificatus Nostri Anno Quarto.

LEO PP. XIII.

*De morib. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 80.

+ Psal. cxliii. 11.

Isai. xxxii. 18.

Notices of Catholic Continental Periodicals.

THE

ITALIAN PERIODICALS.

La Scuola Cattolica. 31 Maggio; 31 Luglio, 1881.
Legitimacy and Catholics.

THE Scuola Cattolica is issuing a series of articles on a subject of much interest, especially at the present day, because it has led to grave disagreement amongst Catholics, particularly in France. Many see no hope of salvation save in the restoration to the throne of the legitimate branch of the old Bourbons. Christian France, they say, cannot be saved but by a Christian monarchy, and such a government is possible only by the triumph of the Comte de Chambord. Hence their aim is to endeavour to upset the Republic, in order to the furtherance of this object. Others judge differently, and consider that the Church ought not to connect itself with political parties. Let us not, they say, create irritation by striving to overturn an established Government, powerfully supported by men who will unite in one common hatred both the Church and the party who oppose them for the Church's sake. Legitimacy, moreover, they contend, is a vanquished cause, and its adherents, being impotent to prevail, are impotent also to hinder the persecutions which their fruitless efforts would excite, to the prejudice of religion. To the Legitimists such language is intolerable, implying, as it does, the sacrifice of the hereditary prince's lawful rights.

Clearly there is here a double question for consideration-the claims of legitimacy, as such, and those of the only pretender who will avowedly devote himself to the restoration of Christian order. The former is a speculative, the latter a practical question; and it is well not to confound the two. The reviewer first treats the speculative question. It is one which does not concern France exclusively, for throughout Europe, and particularly in Italy, there are other dispossessed sovereigns, at the head of whom must be placed the Vicar of Jesus Christ. But, since his rights as a sovereign are of a higher order, owing to their connection with his spiritual rights, the reviewer defers that subject until later on. In the present article he inquires what legitimacy is, whether it can be lost, and for what causes. Legitimacy, with Catholics, can, in the abstract, only be right in conformity to the eternal law. In the concrete, royal legitimacy is the right which a prince possesses, not only as regards the origin of his authority, but also as respects its exercise in conformity with the principles of justice. Can this right be forfeited? He answers affirmatively. God has often set aside bad princes; and, although God is absolute in His power, He never acts without a reason. VOL. VI.—NO. II. [Third Series.]

NN

The

Church also, acting by the authority He has entrusted to her, has at times discharged subjects from their oaths of fidelity. This is sufficient to prove that legitimacy is not necessarily inadmissible. The divine right of the ruler does not import the direct election by God of any determined individual, but that, as all authority is from God, so he who wields it is entitled to respect and obedience. Legitimacy can, therefore, speaking speculatively, be lost, for the reviewer is alluding only to the loss of a just title, not to the practical infliction of the penalty incurred. This caution is needful, lest the doctrine here laid down should seem to lend a sanction to revolutionary principles. It is not therefore a question here by whom and in what manner a legitimate prince who has become a tyrant may or can be despoiled of his power, but simply if legitimacy can be lost. As to its effective privation, this is a grave question of prudence, and one often practically insoluble, from the difficulty of finding a proper judge between the prince and his subjects, and also because tyranny is frequently preferable to the evil results of sedition, The Catholic Church, accordingly, does not leave it to the will of the people to rise at their pleasure in revolt against unjust princes, which would often entail more detriment to society than does their misrule.

For what causes can legitimacy be forfeited? Following the doctors of the Church, the reviewer first mentions habitual incapacity to rule. The king is for the kingdom, not the kingdom for the king. The Merovingians were legitimate, but the Carlovingians were substituted for them, with the sanction of the Sovereign Pontiff, the supreme judge. And if such incapacity, which is a negative fault, be an adequate cause for the forfeiture of a legitimate right, what of the active misconduct of a prince who positively works the ruin of the commonwealth by his misrule? S. Thomas enumerates among the offences which incur this loss, first, infidelity, the apostasy of the Catholic ruler of a Catholic nation; next, intolerable exaction and the habitual disregard of the just rights, spiritual or temporal, of his subjects. Note, however, that such deficiency in his duties as ruler must be considerable and persistent, in order to render it proportionate to the penalty incurred. It may be asked, would a prince forfeit his legitimate rights who should commit any such offences, constrained thereto by a Constitution to which he has sworn? Undoubtedly he would, in spite of every chart or Constitution whatever. The prince cannot despoil himself of his free will and the personal responsibility which every man incurs by his voluntary acts. In this sense there can be no such a being as an irresponsible sovereign. Is it, however, lawful to question the legitimacy of any prince who, in spite of his misrule, continues to receive the homage of the world at large? And when does such consentient recognition possess a practical authority? The reviewer replies, when it corresponds with the Church's unerring judgment. Human nature in itself is liable to the grossest aberrations from truth and justice, and if, descending to the concrete, we cast an

*

* This subject was treated at length in a recent number of the Scuola Cattolica.

eye at modern Europe, which has abandoned so many lawful sovereigns to the violence of the Revolution-and especially the Roman Pontiff himself-which has practically abolished the law of nations, set aside the obligations of solemn treaties, and which, urged on by the tyranny of the Masonic sects, has precipitated itself into the most degrading anti-social apostasy, which denies all legitimacy and oppresses right by force, what value, it may well be asked, can be placed on its decisions?

But, now, what are some of the practical inferences to be drawn from this doctrine by Catholics of the present day? The reviewer premises that there are persons who exaggerate the rights of royal legitimacy, and impute a species of sacredness to it which no dereliction of duty on the part of those possessing it can in the least impair. This is not Catholic doctrine. If subjects have duties towards the sovereign, so have sovereigns duties towards their subjects, which they cannot habitually violate with impunity. Now, to apply this doctrine to modern history, it must be sorrowfully confessed that there is scarcely a legitimacy existing in the true sense of the word; society is in a state of agony, and can the authors or abettors of the crimes which have led to this state, and against which the Church for three centuries has been protesting, have preserved their legitimacy? The Catholic submits, and is patient, but well-nigh every where lives under governments simply such de facto, whose system is war against truth and justice, and whose title is complicity with the Revolution, which is all one with negation of every right. Right has perished. What, then, is the practical consequence of this condition as regards their behaviour? The first is the duty of refraining from flattery. Flattery is always odious; but when the person flattered is high in authority and abuses his power for evil, it is doubly criminal. It is servility which has mainly led to the loss of legitimacy. If, therefore, on some only devolves the duty of raising their voice against an unworthy ruler, all are bound to abstain from applause, and to give him, at least, the lesson of silence. But, further, if all are bound to prevent evil and promote good, so far as lies in their power, certainly they must be so bound when it is a question of liberating the commonwealth from tyranny. The Catholic, therefore, while abstaining from sedition, as has been observed, in order to avoid worse evils, will feel it his duty to make an active use of his civil rights, of which the Sovereign Pontiff has in Italy specified the sphere. Finally, the reviewer declares that he considers the French Legitimists as worthy of all praise, in that they solemnly proclaim that Christian France can never be saved but by a Christian monarchy, showing thereby that they do not so much look to the restoration of an ancient dynasty as to the eminently Christian character of its present representative. If they rested their claims in his behalf solely on the sacredness of his hereditary rights, it is plain that the reviewer would not coincide with them, inasmuch as he considers that the Bourbon sovereigns of France were guilty, and that persistently, of offences amply sufficient for the forfeiture of their legitimacy, although it was an unoffending scion of their race who became the scapegoat of their misdeeds.