14 May 2025

St Boniface, Archbishop of Metz, Apostle of Germany and Martyr

From Fr Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints.


ST. BONIFACE was born at Crediton or Kirton in Devonshire about the year 680, and at his baptism named Winfrid. When he was but five years old, his chief delight was to hear holy men converse about God and heavenly things. The edifying deportment and holy instructions of certain pious monks, who, being employed in preaching in that country, happened to come to his father’s house, gave him a strong desire to devote himself to God in a religious state; and though he was then only a child, the deep impressions which their words left upon his heart were never after effaced. His father exerted his whole authority to divert him from his inclination to a monastic life; till being visited by a dangerous sickness, he acknowledged in it the hand of God, chastising him for opposing his son’s vocation, which he from that time gave him free leave to pursue. Winfrid was educated from thirteen years of age in the monastery of Escancester or Exeter, under the holy abbot Wolphard. With the study of grammar he joined assiduous devout meditation, and the most rigorous observance of monastic discipline, even before he had professed that state; which he embraced before he left the aforesaid monastery. After he had spent there some years, the reputation of the schools and discipline of the monastery of Nutcell, 1 in the diocess of Winchester, under the learned abbot Winbert, drew him to that house. He made an extraordinary progress in poesy, rhetoric, history, and in the knowledge of the scriptures; and was afterwards appointed by his abbot to teach the same sciences: of which duty he acquitted himself with great fruit to others, at the same time improving himself in the sciences with that redoubled advantage which maturity of years and judgment, and a diligent review of a well-digested course of former studies give to masters of an elevated genius. At thirty years of age he was promoted to the order of priesthood; and from that time was chiefly employed in preaching the word of God to the people, and in the care of souls. Such was his reputation that he was intrusted by his superiors with an important commission to Brithwald, archbishop of Canterbury; by which means that prelate and the religious king Ina became acquainted with his extraordinary merit: and the bishops of the province from that time invited him to their synods, that they might be assisted by his learning and advice in their deliberations. 1
The servant of God, burning with zeal for the divine honour and the salvation of souls, never ceased to bewail, night and day, the misfortune of those nations which lay benighted in the shades of idolatry. In these holy dispositions, after having long implored the light and blessing of heaven, he, with the leave of his abbot, passed over into Friseland to preach the gospel to the infidels in 716. But for the trial of his virtue, a war breaking out between Charles Martel, mayor of the French palace, and Radbod, king of Friseland, threw insuperable difficulties in his way. However, he advanced as far as Utrecht, then the capital city of that country, and addressed himself to king Radbod, but without success: and he was obliged to return to his monastery in England. Winbert dying soon after, Winfrid was unanimously chosen abbot. He did all that in his power lay to decline this promotion, alleging that he was called to the conversion of infidels. Though he was not able then to prevail, he shortly after urged the same motive with such success, as to engage Daniel, the learned and pious bishop of Winchester, to procure that his demission should be accepted, and another nominated abbot in his place. 2

After having staid two years in England, he set out for Rome in 719, and presented himself to Pope Gregory II. begging his apostolic blessing, and authority that he might preach the faith to infidels. The pope, fixing his eyes upon him, asked him if he brought with him commendatory letters from his diocesan. Hereupon Winfrid delivered into his hands letters from the aforesaid bishop Daniel, by which he was strongly recommended to his holiness. Gregory having read them, and conversed some time with the saint, began to treat him with extraordinary marks of kindness and esteem, and gave him an ample commission to preach the faith to all the infidel nations of Germany. He bestowed on him many holy relics, and dismissed him with his blessing, and letters of recommendation to all Christian princes in his way. The holy missionary lost no time, but taking the road of Germany, crossed the Lower Alps, and travelling through Bavaria into Thuringia, there began his apostolical functions. He not only baptized great numbers of infidels, but also brought the Christians he found already established in Bavaria, and in the provinces adjoining to France, (especially the priests and bishops,) to reform many irregularities, and to live in a manner agreeable to the precepts of the gospel, and to the holy canons of the Church; for the commerce of the heathens had almost extinguished in them the sense of the pure maxims of their faith. Winfrid hearing soon after, that by the death of Radbod, Charles Martel was become master of Friseland, and that a door was there opened for the preaching of the gospel, he hastened thither, and during three years joined his labours with St. Willebrord to the great increase of the faith; till, understanding that St. Willebrord intended to make him his successor in the episcopal charge, he was alarmed, and left that mission. For his excuse he alleged that the pope had enjoined him a commission to preach the gospel to the heathens in Germany. From Friseland he went into Hesse and part of Saxony; and wherever he came, baptized many thousands of idolaters, destroyed temples, and built churches. He acquainted Pope Gregory with this wonderful success, by a letter which he sent by one of his fellow-labourers, and, at the same time, consulted his holiness upon several difficulties that occurred in his ministry. The pope gave glory to God, and congratulated him by a letter, in which he commanded him to repair to Rome. Winfrid immediately obeyed the order, and arrived there in 723. Gregory required of him a confession of his faith, as is usual with regard to bishops elect before their consecration. He likewise put to him several questions concerning his missions and converted countries, and after a few days ordained him bishop. Willibald says, that on this occasion the pope changed his rugged northern name of Winfrid into that of Boniface: but he could only confirm that change; for we find by the saint’s letters, that he then bore the name of Boniface: joining with it that of Winfrid. The saint took an oath to maintain the purity of faith, and the unity of the Church; a copy of which, written with his own hand, he laid upon the tomb of St. Peter. Pope Gregory gave him a book of select canons of the Church, to serve him for a rule in his conduct, and by letters, recommended him to Charles Martel, and to all bishops and princes wherever he should have occasion to travel. 3
The saint returning to his mission in Hesse, continued his spiritual conquests, and cut down a tall oak consecrated to Jupiter, the timber of which he employed in building a chapel in honour of the prince of the apostles. He founded many churches, and a monastery at Orfordt. The harvest growing daily upon his hands, he procured a new supply of labourers from England, whom he stationed in Hesse and Thuringia. In 732, Gregory III. succeeding in the pontificate, St. Boniface sent messengers to Rome, to consult him upon several difficulties. Gregory showed these deputies great respect, and sent by them a pall for St. Boniface, to be used by him only when he celebrated the divine mysteries, or consecrated bishops. He at the time constituted him archbishop and primate of all Germany, with power to erect new bishoprics where he should see it expedient. The saint went himself to Rome for the third time in 738 to visit the tombs of the apostles, and to confer with his holiness about the churches he had founded. The pope received him as a living saint, and appointed him legate of the apostolic see in Germany. Boniface on his return to that country was called into Bavaria by the Duke Odilo, to reform several abuses. Finding only one bishopric in that country, namely, Passaw, he established three others, Saltzburg, 2 Freisinghein, and Ratisbon, which division the pope confirmed in 739. The holy primate soon after established three new bishoprics, at Erford for Thuringia, at Baraburg for Hesse, since translated to Paderborn, and at Wurtzbourg for Franconia: he added a fourth at Achstat in the palatinate of Bavaria. 4
Gregory III. dying in November 741, his successor Zachary, upon application made to him by St. Boniface, again confirmed all he had done in settling the church of Germany. At that time happened a memorable revolution in France, in which that crown was transferred into a new family, fruitful in great princes and valiant heroes. Charles Martel, mayor of the palace, having governed France twenty-six years with great valour and prudence, having conquered Burgundy and Aquitain, humbled the Saxons, and often defeated the Saracens who made formidable invasions from their late settlements in Spain, died in 741, being fifty or fifty-five years old. Since the dignity of mayor of the palace was become hereditary, the title of duke and prince of France had been added to it. By the death of Charles, his eldest son Carloman became mayor and prince of Austrasia, or Lorrain, and that part of Germany which was then subject to France. He subdued Odilo and Thierry, the former duke of Bavaria, and the latter of Saxony, and made them tributary; but it was his chief aim to consult by peace the happiness of his people, to protect religion, and to cultivate the useful arts. He bent his whole authority to second the zeal of our saint in all his undertakings. Two impostors were stirred up by the devil to disturb the infant church of Germany. The one, Adalbert, a Frenchman, pretended to know the secrets of hearts, gave his own hair and the parings of his nails as relics, and wrote his own life, filled with absurd pretended miracles, enthusiasm, and pride. The other, called Clement, a Scotsman, rejecting the canons or the ecclesiastical laws, taught that Christ in his descent into hell delivered all the souls of the damned: he also held heterodox opinions concerning predestination. St. Boniface, in a council in Germany, condemned them both in 742; Carloman caused them to be confined in close prison, and the sentence of our saint and his council was afterward confirmed by the pope in a synod at Rome in 745. 3 St. Boniface held another council in 743 at Leptines, now Lessines, a palace of the kings of Austrasia, near Ath, in the diocess of Cambray. Prince Carloman finding him a man full of the science of the saints, and of the spirit of God, listened to his advice in all things relating to the salvation of his soul. By the saint’s pious discourses, his heart was daily more and more inflamed with divine love, till despising the world in the height of its glory, he recommended his estates and his son Drogo to Pepin the Short, his younger brother, and disengaged himself from all the ties of the world. He then went to Rome with a splendid retinue, and having visited the tombs of the apostles and other holy places of that city, and dismissed his attendants, he received from the hands of Pope Zachary the monastic habit, and retiring to mount Soracte, built there a monastery called St. Sylvester’s. The neighbourhood of Rome drew thither so many visitants, especially among the French lords who lived in that city, that to avoid this distraction, by the advice of the pope, he withdrew to mount Cassino, where he lived several years with great fervour and humility, as the author of the Chronicle of Mount Cassino, Eginhard in his Annals, and other historians of that age testify. He chose and discharged with great cheerfulness the meanest offices, often served in the kitchen, kept the sheep of the monastery, and worked like a day-labourer in the garden. In this he had before his eyes the example of many English-Saxon kings who had done the same. Ceolwulph, king of the Northumbers, to whom Bede dedicated his History, was the eighth among them who had then exchanged his regal crown for the cowl of a monk, taking the habit at Lindisfarne in 737, as Hoveden, Simeon of Durham, and Matthew of Westminster relate. In the same year Frisisgithe, queen of the West-Saxons, going to Rome, there took the religious veil. Carloman was doubtless encouraged by these heroic examples. Being sent into France for certain affairs of his Order, he died holily at Vienne in 755. His brother, Pepin the Short, became mayor of the palace for the whole kingdom, till, in 752, he was chosen king by the unanimous consent of the whole nation, when the removal of Childeric III. put an end to the Merovingian line of kings. 4 St. Boniface, as appears by his letters and various consultations, was timorous in decisions, nor did he appear as an actor in this delicate affair. Pope Zachary, as Eginhard, Otto, and others relate, upon the application of the states of the realm, answered, that it was better he should be king, in whom the whole supreme power and authority were lodged, 5 and in this decision all parties peaceably acquiesced; judging that the State could not have two kings at the same time. All writers conspire in giving the highest commendations to the princely virtues of Pepin, whose zeal for religion, and love of the Church and of holy men, could only be rivalled by his consummate experience, wisdom, and valour, by which he laid the foundation of that high pitch of power and glory to which his son carried the French empire. The new king, desiring to be crowned by the most holy prelate in his dominions, insisted upon the ceremony being performed by St. Boniface. This was done at Soissons, where our saint presided in a synod of bishops, and all the states of the French kingdom assisted at the coronation. St. Boniface in his first council in Germany, is styled legate of St. Peter. From the councils of Lessines and Soissons, he appears to have been legate of the apostolic see in France no less than in Germany. In 746, he entreated Pope Zachary to send a bishop legate into France, that he might be eased of that burthen. The pope refused to grant this request; but allowed him by a singular privilege, to choose whom he thought best qualified to be his successor in Germany after his death. The saint had been some years archbishop of Germany before he fixed his metropolitan see in any particular city. Cologne was at first judged the most proper, it being then the metropolis; but Gervilio, the bishop of Mentz, having been deposed in a council, that city was pitched upon in 745. Pope Zachary subjected to this new metropolitan church the bishoprics of Tongres, Cologne, Worms, Spire, Utrecht; also all those which St. Boniface had erected, and those which before were subject to the see of Worms, namely, Strasburg, Ausburgh, Constance, and Coire. Thus was Mentz made the metropolitan church of all Germany; for Triers was then comprised in France. Shortly after Cologne, and in process of time many other churches were raised to the dignity of archbishoprics, though in honour of St. Boniface, Mentz has always retained the primacy. 5
To assist him in planting the spirit of meekness and Christian piety in a fierce and uncivilized nation, St. Boniface invited over from England many holy men and religious women. Among these were St. Wigbert, St. Burchard, bishop of Wurtzbourg, St. Willibald, bishop of Eichstad, and St. Lullus: and among the holy virgins, were St. Lioba, our saint’s cousin, St. Thecla, St. Walburge, Bertigita, and Contruda, to whom he committed the direction of several nunneries which he erected in Thuringia, Bavaria, and other places. In 746 he laid the foundation of the great abbey of Fuld or Fulden, which continued long the most renowned seminary of piety and learning in all that part of the world. The abbot is now a prince of the empire, lord of a very extensive territory, and is styled primate of all the abbots in Germany, and chancellor to the empress. St. Boniface had several years before founded a monastery at Fridislar in honour of St. Peter; another at Hamenburgh in honour of St. Michael; and one at Ordorfe in honour of the same archangel, in all which the monks gained their livelihood by the labour of their hands. The pastoral care of so many churches did not hinder this holy man from extending his zeal to remote countries, especially to that which gave him birth. Ethelbald, king of Mercia, was a lover of justice, and liberal to the poor; but sullied these virtues by abominable lusts, abstaining from matrimony that he might wallow in filthy incontinency; and his scandalous example was imitated by many of his courtiers. St. Boniface, touched to the quick at the news of such scandals, in 745, wrote to this prince a strong remonstrance and exhortation to penance, putting him in mind how base it was for him to be the slave of lust to the injury of God, by whose benefit he ruled so great a nation; and how heinous a crime it was to set such an example to his subjects. 6 He tells him that chastity is so highly prized among the Pagan inhabitants of old Saxony, that if a married woman was convicted of adultery, or a virgin of fornication, she was strangled, and her body burnt; and he who had dishonoured her was hanged over her grave; or she was scourged on her back by women, and stabbed with knives, first in one village, then in the next, and so round the country, till she expired under her torments. “If Gentiles, who know not God,” says the saint, “have so great a zeal for chastity, what ought to be your sentiments who are a Christian and a king!” He puts him in mind of the unhappy end of his predecessor, Cœlred, and of Osred, king of the Northumbrians, both addicted to this shameful vice, and both snatched away by sudden death in the midst of their evil courses. From the gift of Croiland, mentioned by Ingulphus, and from the laws of this king in favour of the church, and of the abbey of Ripendune, Natalis Alexander, and some others, think he became a sincere penitent. He was slain soon after, in 755, by Beornred, a rebel, who usurped his throne. 7 6
St. Boniface wrote a circular letter to all the bishops, priests, deacons, canons, monks, nuns, and all the people of England, conjuring them earnestly to join in holy prayer, to beg of God, who desires that all may be saved, that he would vouchsafe, in his infinite mercy, to shower down his blessing upon the labours of all those who are employed in endeavouring to bring souls to his saving knowledge and holy love. He often desired books to be sent him from England, especially the works of Bede, whom he calls a lamp of the church. 8 He entreated the abbess Edburge 9 to send him the epistles of St. Peter written in letters of gold, to inspire carnal men with the greater respect, and to satisfy his devotion to that apostle, whom he calls the patron of his mission. Writing to the abbot Aldherius, 10 he begs that he would cause the sacrifice of the mass to be offered for the souls of those missionaries who were lately deceased. In several other epistles he mentions the mutual contract of charity between the missionaries abroad and the priests and monks in England, that they should reciprocally pray for their deceased brethren. In a letter to a nun, 11 he mentions how much he had to suffer in his mission from the Pagans, from false Christians, and even from ecclesiastics of debauched morals. Yet the ardour of his charity made him continually to thirst after greater sufferings, and especially after the honour of laying down his life for the love of him who died for us. In a letter to Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, 12 treating of the duties of pastors, he says, “Let us fight for the Lord in these days of bitterness and affliction. If this be the will of God, let us die for the holy laws of our fathers, that we may arrive with them at the eternal inheritance. Let us not be dumb dogs, sleeping sentinels, hirelings that fly at the sight of the wolf: but watchful and diligent pastors; preaching to the great and small, to the rich and poor, to every age and condition, being instant in season and out of season.” St. Boniface, in his homilies, most frequently inculcates the obligation and sanctity of the baptismal vows. 7
This apostle of so many nations thought he had yet done nothing, so long as he had not spilt his blood for Christ, and earnestly desired to attain to that happiness. Making use of the privilege which Pope Zachary had granted him of choosing his successor, he consecrated St. Lullus, an Englishman, formerly monk of Malmesbury, archbishop of Mentz, in 754, leaving him to finish the churches which he had begun in Thuringia, and that of Fuld, and conjuring him to apply himself strenuously to the conversion of the remaining idolaters. He wrote a letter to Fulrad, 13 abbot of St. Denys, begging him to make this choice of St. Lullus agreeable to King Pepin, and as his infirmities admonished him that he had not long to remain in this world, he conjured that prince to take into his favour and protection his disciples, who were almost all strangers, either priests dispersed in many places for the service of the church, or monks assembled in his little monastery, where they were employed in instructing children. He says that the priests lived on the frontiers of the Pagans, very poor and destitute, and that they were able to get their bread, but not clothing unless they were assisted. Pepin granted his request, and Pope Stephen II. confirmed his nomination of Lullus, and his resignation of the see of Mentz, in order that he might go and preach the gospel to those nations which still remained unconverted. 8
The saint, looking upon himself as devoted to labour in the conversion of infidels, and being at liberty to follow the call of heaven, would not allow himself any repose, so long as he saw souls perishing in the shades of darkness, and his extreme desire of martyrdom seemed to give him a foresight of his approaching death. Having therefore settled his church and put all things in the best order possible, he set out with certain zealous companions to preach to the savage infidel inhabitants of the northern parts of East Friesland. Having converted and baptized some thousands among them, he appointed the eve of Whit-Sunday to administer to the neophytes the sacrament of confirmation in the open fields in the plains of Dockum, near the banks of the little rivulet Bordne. He pitched there a tent, and was waiting in prayer the arrival of the new converts, when, behold, instead of friends, a band of enraged infidels appeared on the plain all in arms, and coming up, rushed into his tent. The servants that were with the holy martyr were for defending his life by fighting; but he would not suffer it, declaring that the day he had long waited for was come, which was to bring him to the eternal joys of the Lord. He encouraged the rest to meet, with cheerfulness and constancy, a death which was to them the gate of everlasting life. While he was thus employed, the Pagans attacked them sword in hand, and put them all to death. St. Boniface suffered in the seventy-fifth year of his age, on the 5th of June, in the year of Christ 755. With him were martyred fifty-two companions, of whom the principal persons were Eoban, bishop; Wintrung, Walter, and Adelhere, priests; Hamund, Strichald, and Bosa, deacons; Waccar, Gunderhar, Williker, and Hadulph, monks; the rest were laymen. The barbarians expected to have a great booty of gold and silver in the baggage of the holy martyrs; but found nothing in their trunks but relics and books, which they scattered about the fields, or hid in ditches and marshes. Some of these things were afterwards found, and of them three books are still preserved in the monastery of Fuld, or Fulden: namely, a book of the gospels written in St. Boniface’s own hand; a copy of a Harmony, or canons of the New Testament; and a third book, which is stained with the martyr’s blood, and contains the letter of St. Leo to Theodorus, bishop of Frejus, and the discourse of St. Ambrose on the Holy Ghost, with his treatise, De bono Mortis; or, On the advantage of Death. The body of St. Boniface was first carried to Utrecht, thence to Mentz, and lastly to Fuld, where it was deposited by St. Lullus, as the saint himself had desired. 14 It is to this day regarded as the greatest treasure of that monastery. The continuators of Bollandus have given us, under the title of Analecta Bonifaciana, a long history of an incredible number of miracles down to this present time, which have been wrought by God at the relics, and through the intercession of St. Boniface. 9
He who sincerely loves God, rejoices with this martyr to sacrifice to his honour his life, and whatever he has received of his bounty. With his whole strength he consecrates all his faculties eternally to the glorious and holy functions of divine love. He prays and labours without intermission that God alone may reign in his own soul, and ardently desires that all tongues may never cease to sound forth his praises, and that all creatures may have but one heart, always to be employed with the angels and blessed spirits, in doing his will, in loving him, and in glorifying his adorable name. There is no danger to which such a one would not with joy expose himself; nothing so difficult that he would not undertake, that one soul might be converted to God. He would rejoice to lay down his life a thousand times, were it possible, to hinder one offence against the divine majesty. Baronius 15 pathetically exhorts the Germans to consider what men their apostles were, and what were the maxims of the gospel they received from them; for with these their holy pastors and teachers, who will sit with the supreme Judge at the last day, they will be confronted and judged by them. 10


Note 1. This monastery was afterwards destroyed by the Danes, and never rebuilt. [back]
Note 2. The conversion of the Bojarii or Bavarians, is recorded by the author of the short history of that event, entitled Quomodo Boiarii facti sunt Christiani, written in 858, published by Canisius, (t. 2, Lect. Antiqu.) by Du Chesne, (t. 2, Franc. Script.) by Dubravius, bishop of Olmutz, (in Collect. Scriptor. Hist. Boëmicæ, p. 15,) and by Hansiz (Germaniæ Sacræ, t. 2, p. 35.) We have also a history of it in the lives of Rupert, St. Virgilius, and other eminent bishops of Saltzburg, published by Canisius. (Ant. Lect. t. 3, part 2, p. 282.) St. Rupert or Rodbert, pronounced Robert, was of the blood royal of France, and the zealous and holy bishop of Worms, who, in 699, preached the faith in Bavaria, and built at Juvavia or Juvava, now Saltsburg, a stately cathedral, an abbey for monks, and a nunnery called Nonberg, in which he appointed Edintruda first abbess, a holy virgin whom he sent for from his own diocess, and whose name seems English. St. Robert, in the decline of his health, appointed Vitalis bishop of Saltzburg, and returning to Worms, there died soon after in 718, on Easter-day, the 27th of March. Many miracles honoured his tomb. Aventinus places the mission of St. Rupert in 570: Mezgerus in 580, conformably to the popular tradition of the church of Saltzburg. But Mabillon, Valois, Hansiz, and Pickius produce strong proofs for deferring it to 696. Bernard Pez, in a letter prefixed to his edition of the Acts of St. Trudpert the martyr, endeavoured to confirm the date of Mezgerus; and was supported by Palignese, the historian of Saltzburg, and by Meichelbeck, Hist. Frising, t. 2, diss. 1. Hansiz made a solid reply, Respons ad epistolam Pezii, p. 7, and is followed by the most judicious critics.
This see of Saltzburg had been long vacant, when St. Boniface ordained one John bishop thereof in 739, St. Virgilius, an Irishman, coming through France, brought from King Pepin recommendatory letters to Odilo, duke of Bavaria, and was by his means made bishop of Saltzburg in 746, according to Pagi, or rather in 766. He planted the faith in Carinthia, and appointed Modestus first bishop of that country. St. Virgilius died in 784. Hansiz shows against Pagi, that there were not two in Germany of this name, and that this Virgilius is the same whose opinion about the Antipodes St. Boniface mistook as if he had taught another sun and moon, and another race of men who descended not from Adam, and were not redeemed by Christ; which would have been heresy. (Ger. Sac. t. 2, p. 84.) Thus we understand in what sense St. Boniface is said to have established or restored the bishopric of Saltzburg. That city rose from the ruins of Juvava, which was destroyed by Attila. In honour of St. Rupert, the archiepiscopal see was afterwards transferred thither from Lorch, or Laureacum, the ancient capital of Noricum. [back]
Note 3. Conc. t. 6, pp. 14, 15, and St. Bonif. ep. 138. [back]
Note 4. The Merovingian race, so called from King Meroveus, in whom the French crown was first made hereditary, filled the throne three hundred and thirty-five years, under twenty-two successive reigns of kings in Paris. The Carlovingian line, so called from Charles Martel, possessed the crown during fourteen reigns, and terminated in Lewis V. in 987, who died without issue. The nobility passing by his uncle Charles duke of Lorrain, chose Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the Great, the powerful count of Paris, who defeated Charles, and imprisoned him for life. The Capetian race of French kings reigns to this day, but was subdivided into two younger branches; the Valesian, which begun in Philip VI. of Valois in 1328; and that of Bourbon, which was called to the throne in Henry IV. in 1587, and was descended from Robert, fourth son of St. Lewis, count of Clermont, who marrying Beatrix of Bourbon, his posterity took that title. [back]
Note 5. The kings of France of the first race, from Clovis II. son of Dagobert I. in 643, to Childeric III. in 752, during ten reigns successively through a whole century, had given themselves up to an inactive life, and were sunk in indolence, never concerning themselves with the state, in which the supreme authority was intrusted to the mayor of the palace: and this magistracy was often the cause of wars, and became at length hereditary. Thus the kings were merely titular. This form of government was a source of continual factions, and other disorders, very prejudicial to the public weal. The crown, in all the barbarous nations which came from the North, was originally elective, as Robertson shows in his learned preliminary discourse to his History of Scotland; but among the French and most others it soon became hereditary. The constitution of the French government being become inconsistent with itself, on this occasion it was judged necessary to restore the original form, and for this purpose to transfer the crown upon him whom the laws of the state had already vested with the whole regal power and authority. Childeric III., surnamed the Stupid, having been titular king nine years, was shaved a monk at Sithiu or St. Bertin’s in 752, and died there in 755. On the answers of the two Popes Zachary and Stephen III., see Eginhard, (in Vitâ Caroli, M.) Otto, bishop of Frisingen, (in Chron.) Annales Loiseliani, Fuldenses et Bertiniani: Lambertus Schafnaburgensis, Ado, &c. Also Natalis Alexander, (Sæc. 8, diss. 2, p. 485.) Spelman (in Glossar.) F. Daniel, t. 1. Mezeray; Dom Maur, Chronologie Univ. &c. Afterwards Pepin professed himself penitent, and begged absolution of Pope Stephen III., if in this transaction he had sinned by secret ambition, or otherwise. See Mém. de l’Acad. t. 6, and Abrégé Chronol. de l’Histoire de France, par M. Henault.
How difficult soever it may be to excuse Pepin from taking ambitious steps to prepare the way for this revolution, as F. Longueval takes notice, (Hist. de l’Eglise de France, t. 4, l. 12, p. 352,) the case is very different as to the persons who only acquiesced in an unanimous resolution taken by those who were best acquainted with right and law in a succession, which till then seemed only hereditary under certain restrictions, as frequent examples in the French, English, and other new kingdoms, of the same original, from the northern transmigrations, show. Pope Zachary’s answer is said to have been, “Melius esse illum vocari regem, apud quem summa potestas consisteret.” (Annales Bertiniani ad an. 749. Eginhard, &c.) See Spelman in Glossar. The circumstances of the dethroning of Childeric, and of Pepin’s election, are related so differently, and the true history is so obscure, that it is easy for every writer to give it his own gloss. Eckhard (Comment. de rebus Franciæ Orientalis et Episcopatus Wirceburgensis, t. 2, Wirceburgi, 1729,) shows that St. Boniface had no share in this revolution nor even was pleased with it. Otherwise, he would rather have been sent on the embassy to Pope Zachary than Burchard, bishop of Wurtzbourg, and Fulrad, abbot of St. Denys. Nor would the authors of St. Boniface’s life have passed over such an occurrence under Pepin’s successors, or the saint been silent in his writings. Mabillon and Pagi place this revolution in 751; but Von Eckhard, more probably, in 752, in which the chronicle of Fontanelle (apud Du Chesne, t. 3, p. 386,) mentions the retreat of Theoderic, son of Childeric, who was sent at the same time to the abbey of Fontanelle in Normandy. That the election of Pepin was unanimous, and a transaction of the whole nation, and of all the powers that could be consulted in it, is proved in note 43 on Serarius Rerum Mogunticar, by Georgius Christianus Joannis. Francof. 1723, p. 332. [back]
Note 6. Parce ergo animæ tuæ, fili charissime, parce multitudini populi, tuo pereuntis exemplo, de quorum animabus redditurus es rationem. St. Bonifac. ep. 19, p. 76, et apud Gulielm. Malmesb. l. 1, de Gestis Angl. Regum. [back]
Note 7. A collection of St. Boniface’s letters was published by Serrarius in 1605; but out of the hundred and fifty-two of which it consists, only thirty-nine were written by the saint, the rest being letters addressed to him by popes, princes, bishops, and others. By his epistles it appears, that in all his designs and actions he had nothing in view but piety in the service of God. Dom Martenne and Dom Durand have given us a great number of other curious letters of St. Boniface, (Thesaur Anecdot. t. 9,) also nineteen homilies. In the fourth, St. Boniface speaking of the necessity of confession, says: “If we should conceal our sins, God will discover them publicly in spite of us. And it is better to confess them to one man than to be publicly exposed, and covered with confusion for them in the sight of all the inhabitants of heaven, earth, and hell.” (Hom. 4, p. 195.) We have in D’Acheri’s Spicilegium, t. 9, a collection of canons drawn up by St. Boniface for the direction of the clergy: also his sermon On the Baptismal Renunciation, published in Thesaurus Anecdotorum Novissimus, auctore D. Bern. Pez, Bened. abbate Mellicensi, Augustæ Vindelicorum. An. 1729, t. 3, parte 2, col. 3. The style of this saint’s writings is clear, grave, and simple. He everywhere in them breathes an apostolical spirit, and his thoughts are just and solid. The saint’s letters are all written in Latin, though, as Verstegan our most learned antiquarian takes notice, the language of the English Saxons, and of most parts of Germany, was then so nearly the same, that these missionaries seem not to have stood in need of interpreters. St. Boniface held at least eight councils in Bavaria, Thuringia, Austrasia, and Neustria; on which see Concilia Germaniæ edita a D. Joan. Fred. Schannat et P. Jos. Hartzeim, S. J. t. 1, sæc. 8, Coloniæ. 1759. [back]
Note 8. Ep. 9, p. p. 73. [back]
Note 9. Ib. 28. [back]
Note 10. Ib. 26. [back]
Note 11. Ib. 16, p. 75. [back]
Note 12. Ep. 105. [back]
Note 13. Pope Stephen II. was at that time come into France in 753, to implore the protection of King Pepin against Aistulphus, king of the Lombards, who threatened Rome itself. Pepin received him at Pont-yon, a royal palace near Langres, with the greatest marks of honour, met him three miles from his castle, prostrated before him, and without suffering him to alight, attended him on foot. The pope passed the winter in the monastery of St. Denys, where he fell so dangerously sick, that he was given over by the physicians; but was miraculously cured in the manner following: After prayers for his health, whilst he was alone in the church belonging to that monastery, he was favoured with a vision of SS. Peter, Paul, and Dionysius. This last told him he was restored to his health, and that he should return prosperously to his see, and bade him consecrate in that church an altar to God, in memory of the two apostles whom he there saw present. “I arose,” says the pope, “and finding myself perfectly restored to my health and strength, was for consecrating the altar that moment. But they that attended me thought I raved, and would not suffer me to do it, till I had related to them, and likewise to the king what had happened.” This the pope attested in a letter still extant. (Conc. t. 6, p. 1648, et apud Hilduin. in Areopageticis. See Anastasius, p. 1628. Mabillon, t. 4. Act. Ord. S. Bened. p. 304. Nat. Alex. Sæc. viii. Art. 6.) He granted many privileges to the abbey, and consecrated the altar, and left on it the pall which he then wore, to perpetuate the memory of his miraculous recovery. It is there shown to this day. This pope is highly commended for his piety and great alms-deeds, and cannot be suspected of a forgery. He is by some called Stephen III. because one of the same name was elected before him, but did not live to receive episcopal consecration. [back]
Note 14. The history of the dedication of the church of Fulda, and of the translation of the relics of St. Boniface, with the life of St. Eigil, the abbot who succeeded St. Sturmius in 818, and whose name occurs in the calendars on the 17th of December, is extant, very well written by Candidus, an eye-witness, and monk of that house. [back]
Note 15. Baron. ad Ann. 723, n. 16, et ad Ann. 775, n. 30, t. 9. [back]

Collect of St Boniface, Bishop & Martyr - Indulgenced Today

According to the Apostolic Penitentiary, a partial indulgence is granted to those who on the feast of any Saint recite in his honour the oration of the Missal or any other approved by legitimate Authority.

V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto thee.
Let us pray.
O God, Who, through the zeal of blessed Boniface, thy Martyr and Bishop, graciously called a multitude of people to the knowledge of thy Name, mercifully grant that we who keep his feast may also enjoy his patronage.
Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
R. Amen.

13 May 2025

Duties of the Catholic State In Regard to Religion

Most people know Alfredo, Cardinal Ottaviani from the 'Ottaviani Intervention', but did you know that he was also a leading political philosopher of the Thomistic School?

I am reading Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy, by Fr Thomas Crean, OP and Alan Fimister, in which they quote extensively from His Eminence. A concise summary of the Cardinal's thought is contained in a lecture he gave in 1953. Here is the lecture as later published.

By His Eminence Alfredo, Cardinal Ottaviani

Imprimi potest:

P. O'CARROLL, C.S.Sp. Praep. Prov. Hib.

Nihil obstat:

THOMAS MORRIS, S.T.D. Censor deputatus.

Imprimatur:

JEREMIAS

Archiepiscopus Cassiliensis Thurlesiae, 30a Octobris, 1953

 

 PREFACE

 

            I should not have thought of publishing the lecture I gave on March 2, 1953, in the auditorium of the Pontifical Lateran University, if I had not been moved to do so by the great number of requests I received from writers and professors of different Institutes of Higher Studies. All of them insisted on the e opportuneness of publishing what I had said in the presence of that imposing Assembly. "For too long," a distinguished religious wrote to me, "the Public Law of the Church is heard of only in the lecture halls of Ecclesiastical Institutions, while the need is urgent of making it known to all classes of society and especially to the highest.

 

            "The Press, directed as it is by men who worship liberty far more than truth, on principle never speaks of it. ... The widespread confusion in the presence of which we find ourselves, the perplexities of politicians, and the enormous errors that are committed in the hybrid alliances between states and parties render it imperative that the all-important problem of the relations between Church and State should be put in unmistakable terms, that it should be treated fully, with the greatest clearness, and above all, fearlessly.y.

 

            "Christian courage is a cardinal virtue which is called fortitude."

 

            All these pressing importunities have convinced me that today, more than at any other time, it is necessary for every priest and every layman who collaborates in the apostolate of the clergy to imitate, as far as is possible for him, the example of the Divine Master who, speaking of Himself, said: "For this came I into the world: that I should give testimony to the truth" (St. John. 18:37).

 

            Someone may be tempted to comment on the fact that I have not men­tioned names of authors, even in the cases in which I have quoted extracts from their writings. I have not done so for two reasons: primarily, because it is of little importance to know that certain ideas have been defended by one or other writer, when they are so widely diffused that they can be no longer considered as the exclusive property of certain individuals; secondar­ily, because I have wanted to observe the rule laid down by St. Augustine who admonishes us to combat errors, not those who commit them. Thus also I have tried to follow the program and the example of the august Pontiff gloriously reigning, who has taken as the motto of his Pontificate: "Doing the truth in Charity."

 

Rome, March 25, 1953.

 

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani


 

DUTIES OF THE CATHOLIC STATE IN REGARD TO RELIGION

 

                It is not to be wondered at that the enemies of the Church have always striven to impede her mission, refusing to admit some, or even all, of her divine prerogatives and powers.

 

              The fury of the attack, with its false pretenses, was already let loose against the Divine Founder of this two-thousand-year-old and yet ever youthful Institution. Against Him the cry was raised, the same that is raised today: "We will not have this man to reign over us."1  And with the patience and the serenity that come to her from the secure foundation of her promised destiny and from the certainty of her divine mission, the Church sings throughout the centuries: "He who gives heavenly kingdoms does not take away earthly ones."

 

            We are, however, astonished, and our astonishment grows into bewilder­ment and turns to sadness, when the attempt to deprive this beneficent mother, the Church, of the spiritual arms of justice and truth, is the work of the Church's own children. This is a particular cause of grief, when it is a question of her children dwelling in interconfessional States and thus in continual contact with non-Catholic brethren, since, more than any others, they should experience a debt of gratitude towards this mother, who has always made use of her rights, to defend, to protect and to safeguard her own faithful.

 

CHARISMATIC CHURCH AND JURIDICAL CHURCH

 

            Today some maintain that there is in the Church only a spiritual order, and from that they draw the conclusion that the nature of the Church's law is in contradiction with the nature of the Church herself. According to these people, the original sacramental element has grown continually weaker, giving way to the jurisdictional element, which is now the power of the Church. As the Protestant jurist Sohm holds, the idea has come to be accepted that the Church of God is constituted like the State.
 

            But Canon 108, 3, which treats of the existence in the Church of the power of orders and of the power of jurisdiction, appeals to divine right. And that this appeal is justified, is proved by the texts of the Gospels, the affirmations of the Acts of the Apos­tles and the citations from their Epistles, all of which are frequently quoted by authors of treatises of Public Ecclesiastical Law in order to establish the divine origin of the above-mentioned powers and rights of the Church.h.h.

 

            In the Encyclical Letter, Mystici Corporis,2 the au­gust Pontiff now gloriously reigning wrote about this point in the following terms: "We therefore deplore and condemn also the calamitous error which invents an imaginary Church, a society nurtured and shaped by charity, with which it disparagingly contrasts another society which it calls juridical. Those who make this totally erroneous distinction fail to under­stand that it was one and the same purpose - namely, that of perpetuating on this earth the salutary work of the Redemption - which caused the Divine Re­deemer both to give the community of human beings founded by Him the constitution of a society perfect in its own order, provided with all its juridical and social elements, and also, with the same end in view, to have it enriched by the Holy Spirit with heavenly gifts and powers."

 

            Accordingly, the Church does not desire to be a State, but her Divine founder has constituted the Church a perfect society, enriched with all the powers inherent in such a juridical condition, in order to accomplish its mission in every State, without con­flicts between the two societies of which He is, though in different ways, the Author and the Support.

 

 

ADHERENCE TO THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM

 

            Here the problem presents itself of how the Church and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of these Catholics un­doubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the faint-hearted sol­dier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injus­tice.e.e.e.e.e.

 

            The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.

 

            To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, how­ever, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained con­stant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.

 

            In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its move­ment by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus.  In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi PontificatusNon abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."3

 

            Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encycli­cal Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoret­ically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Let­ters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."4

 

            Because they are afraid of being accused of want­ing to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as be­longing to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages.  For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows."5

 

DUTIES OF THE CATHOLIC STATE

 

            Having treated in n n succint fashion of the preliminary question of the assent that is due to the teachings of the Church, even in her ordinary magisterium, let us now pass on to a practical question, which in popular phraseology, we can call "burning," namely, that of a Catholic State and of the consequences that follow from it with regard to non-Catholic forms of worship.

            It is known that in certain countries of which the absolute majority of the population is Catholic, the Catholic religion is proclaimed to be the religion of the State in their respective Constitutions.  I shall mention as an example, the most typical case, namely, that of Spain. In Article 6 of the Spaniards' Charter, Fuero de los Espanoles, the fundamental Charter of the rights and duties of Spanish citizens, the following provisions are laid down:

 

            "The profession and practice of the Catholic reli­gion, which is the religion of the Spanish State, shall enjoy official protection. No one shall be molested for his religious beliefs nor for the private exercise of his cult. No ceremonies or external manifestations other than those of the State religion shall be permit­ted."t;

 

            These provisions have provoked protests on the part of many non-Catholics and unbelievers; but what is more displeasing, they are considered as out-of-date by some Catholics. These people think that the Church can live peacefully and in the full possession of all the rights to which she is entitled in a lay-state, even when the State is composed of Catholics.

 

            The controversy recently carried on between two authors of opposite views in a country beyond the Atlantic is widely known. One of the disputants has defended the thesis we have just mentioned and holds:

 

(1)        The State, properly speaking, cannot accomplish an act of religion. (The State is a mere symbol or a             collection of institutions).

 

(2)        "An immediate illation from the order of ethical and theological truth to the order of constitutional law,   is, in principle, dialectically inadmissible." That is to say, the State's obligation to worship God can   never enter the Constitutional sphere.

 

(3)        Finally, even for a State composed of Catholics, there is no obligation to profess the Catholic religion.             With regard to the obligation to protect it, this does not become operative except in determined             circumstances and precisely when the liberty of the Church cannot be guaranteed in any other way.

 

            From such principles spring attacks directed against the teaching set forth in manuals of public ecclesiastical law, no account being taken of the fact that such teaching is based, for the most part, on the doctrine expounded in Pontifical Documents.

 

            Now if, among the general principles of public ecclesiastical law, there is any certain and indis­putable truth, it is that of the duty incumbent on the Rulers in a State composed almost entirely of Cath­olics, and which therefore ought to be governed by Catholics in a manner consistent with their religion, to mould the legislation of the State in a Catholic sense ...

 

Three consequences follow immediately from this duty:

 

(1)        The social, and not merely the private, profession of the religion of the people;

 

(2)        Legislation inspired by the full concept of mem­bership of Christ;

 

(3)        The defense of the religious patrimony of the people against every assault aimed at depriving them of      the treasure of their faith and of religious peace.

 

            I have said, first of all, that the State has the duty of professing its religion, even socially.

 

            Men living together in society are not less subject to God than they are as individuals, and civil society, no less than individual human beings, is in debt to God, "who gave it being and maintains it, and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings."6

 

            Accordingly, as it is not lawful for any individual to neglect his duties to God and to the Religion accord­ing to which God wills to be honored, in the same way "states cannot without serious moral offense conduct themselves as if God were non-existent or cast off the care of religion as something foreign to themselves or of little moment."7

 

            Pius XII reinforces this teaching, condemning "the error contained in conceptions such as do not hesi­tate to absolve civil authority from all dependence upon the Supreme Being, the First Cause and the Absolute Master both of man and of society, and from every bond of transcendent law which proceeds from God as from its Primary Source, and that con­cede to civil authority an unlimited power of action, a power left to the ever-changing wave of whims or to the sole restraints of contingent historical exigen­cies or of relative interests."8

 

            And, continuing, the Supreme Pontiff shows clearly, also, what disastrous consequences for the liberty and rights of man follow such an error: "When the authority of God and the power of His law have been thus denied, the civil power, by a necessary consequence, tends to attribute to itself that absolute autonomy which belongs only to the Creator and to put itself in the place of the Omnipotent, raising the State or the collectivity to be the final end of life, the supreme criterion of the moral and juridical order."9

 

            I have said, in the second place, that it is the duty of the Rulers to see to it that the moral principles of the True Religion inspire the social activity of the State as such and its legislation.

 

            This obligation on the part of the Rulers is a con­sequence of the duty of religion and of submission to God, not only on the part of individuals but also on the part of society, and its fulfillment will certainly contribute to the well-being of the people.

 

            In opposition to the moral and religious agnosticism of the State and its laws, Pope Pius XII insisted upon the concept of the Christian State in his splendid Letter of October 19, 1945, for the Nineteenth Social Week of the Italian Catholics, in the course of which the problem of the new Constitution was to be studied.

"Reflecting seriously on the deleterious conse­quences which a Constitution, that abandons the 'corner stone' of the Christian concept of life and attempts to base social life on moral and religious agnosticism, would introduce into the bosom of so­ciety and into its ephemeral history, every Catholic will readily understand that the question which, before every other, ought at present to attract his attention and to spur him to action, is that of securing for this and future generations the benefit of a fundamental law of the State, which is not opposed to sound religious and moral principles, but which rather draws vigorous inspiration from them and proclaims and pursues their lofty aims."10

 

            In this connection, the Sovereign Pontiff has not failed to bestow "the praise due to the wisdom of those Rulers who have either always favored or have striven and known how to restore to honor, to the profit of their people, the value of Christian civilization, by establishing happy relations between Church and State, by safeguarding the sanctity of marriage, and by the religious education of youth."11

 

            In the third place, I have said that it is the duty of the Rulers of a Catholic State to ward off everything that would tend to divide or weaken the religious unity of a people that has the unanimous conviction of being in the secure possession of religious truth. With regard to this point, there is an abundance of documents in which the Holy Father reaffirms the principles enunciated by his Predecessors, particu­larly by Leo XIII.

 

            When condemning the religious indifferentism of the State in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII appeals to the divine law, whereas in the Encyclical Letter Libertas, he appeals also to the principles of justice and to human reason. In the Letter, Immortale Dei, he makes it manifest that Rul­ers cannot "out of the many forms of religion adopt that one which pleases them,"12 because, as he ex­plains, in the worship of God they are obliged to observe the laws and the forms of worship in accor­dance with which God Himself has commanded that He should be honored, "for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will."13 And in the Encyclical Letter, Libertas, he insists strongly on the same point, appealing to justice and to reason: "Justice 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 the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges."14

 

            The Pope appeals to justice and to reason, because it is not just to ascribe the same rights to good and to evil, to truth and to error. And reason revolts at the thought that, out of deference to the demands of a small minority, the rights, the faith, and the con­science of the quasi-totality of the people should be spurned, and that this people should be betrayed, by allowing the enemies of its faith to introduce division among its members with all the consequences of religious strife.

 

FIRMNESS OF PRINCIPLES

 

            These principles are firm and unchanging. They were valid in the days of Innocent III and Boniface VIII. They are valid in the days of Leo XIII and Pius XII, who has reaffirmed them in more than one of his documents. That is why, with unyielding firmness, he has also recalled Rulers to their duties, by appe­aling to the warning of the Holy Ghost, a warning which applies to all times. In the Encyclical Letter, , , Mystici Corporis, the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius XII, speaks as follows: "We must implore God that all those who rule over people may love wisdom,15 so that upon them may never fall that fearful judgment of the Holy Spirit: ‘The Most High will examine your works and search out your thoughts; because being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the will of God. Horribly and speedily will he appear to you; for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. For to him that is little mercy is granted; but the mighty shall be mightily tormented. For God will not except any man's person, neither will he stand in awe of any man's greatness: for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all.' "16

 

            Referring back, then, to what I have said above concerning the agreement of the Encyclicals that have been called in question, I am certain that no one can prove that there has been any change what­ever, in regard to these principles, between the En­cyclical Letter, Summi Pontificatus, of Pius XII, and the Encyclicals of Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris against Communism, Mil brennender Sorge against Nazism, and Non abbiamo bisogno against the State-monopoly of Fascism, on the one hand; and the earlier Encyclicals of Leo XIII, Immortale DeiLibertas and Sapientiae Christianae, on the other.

"The ultimate and supreme norms of society, those which are its foundation stone," declares the August Pontiff in his Radio-message of Christmas, 1942, "cannot be impaired or weakened by the intervention of human minds. They may be denied, ignored, de­spised, transgressed, but they can never be abro­gated in a manner juridically efficacious."17

 

 

THE RIGHTS OF TRUTH

 

            Here it is necessary to answer another question, or rather, a difficulty, so specious that, at first sight, it may seem insoluble.e.e.e.

 

            The objection is put to us: You maintain two differ­ent standards or norms of action according as it suits you. In a Catholic country, you uphold the doctrine of the Confessional State with the duty of exclusive protection for the Catholic religion. On the other hand, where you form a minority, you claim the right of toleration or straightway the equality of forms of worship. Hence for you there are two weights and two measures. The result is a really embarrassing duplicity from which the Catholics who take account of the actual developments of civilization wish to be delivered.

 

            Well, quite frankly, two weights and two measures are to be employed; one for truth, the other for error. Men who feel themselves in secure possession of truth and justice are not going to compromise. They demand full respect for their rights. How can those, however, who do not feel themselves secure in the possession of the truth, claim to hold the field alone, without sharing it with the man who claims respect for his own rights on the basis of other principles?

 

            The concept of the equality of forms of worship and of tolerance has resulted from the doctrine of private judgment and from confessional multiplicity. It is a logical consequence of those opinions accord­ing to which, in the field of religion, there is no place for dogmas and that the individual conscience is the sole criterion and exclusive norm for the profession of faith and the exercise of worship.  Accordingly, in the countries in which such theories flourish is it any wonder that the Catholic Church seeks to be in a position to develop her divine mission and to obtain recognition for those rights which she can claim, as a logical consequence of the principles accepted by the Legislatures of these countries?

 

            The Church would prefer to speak and to put for­ward her claims in the name of God.  But amongst these peoples the exclusive nature of her mission is not recognized. She is content, therefore, to plead her case in the name of that tolerance, of that equality, and of those common guarantees which inspire the laws and the lawgiving of these countries.

 

            When, in 1949, there was held at Amsterdam a reunion of various heterodox bodies in view of furth­ering the ecumenical movement, there were rep­resented in that assembly no fewer than 146 different Churches or Confessions. The delegates present be­longed to about 50 nations. There were Calvinists, Lutherans, Copts, Old Catholics, Baptists, Waldenses, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Malabar Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.

 

            The Catholic Church, knowing herself to be in firm possession of the truth and unity of Christ's Mystical Body, could not, logically, take part in such an assem­bly with a view to seeking there that union which the others have not got.

 

            After lengthy discussions, the members of the as­sembly were not even in agreement for a final celeb­ration in common of the Eucharistic Banquet, which was to be the symbol of their union, if not in faith, at least in charily. Such was the lack of unity that, in the plenary session of August 23,1949. Dr. Kraemer, a Dutch Calvinist, who has since become the Director of the new ecumenical Institute of Celigny in Switzer­land, remarked that it would have been preferable to omit the Eucharistic Banquet altogether rather than manifest so great a lack of unity by holding many separate celebrations.

 

            In such conditions, I say, could one of these Confes­sions coexisting with the others, or even predominant, in one and the same State, adopt an intransigent at­titude and claim for itself what the Catholic Church expects from a State in great majority Catholic?

 

            It ought not, therefore, be a matter for wonder that the Church appeals to and demands recognition for the rights of man at least, when the rights of God are not acknowledged. This the Church did in the first centuries of Christianity when confronted with the Roman Empire and the pagan world; this she continues to do today, especially in those places where every religious right is denied, as in the coun­tries under Soviet domination.

 

            In the presence of the persecutions, to which all Christians are subjected, and Catholics first of all, how could the reigning Pontiff not appeal to the rights of man, to tolerance, to the freedom of consciences, precisely when such frightful havoc is being played with these rights?

 

            He vindicated these rights of man in every sphere of individual and social life in his Christmas message of 1942, and, more recently, in the Christmas mes­sage of 1952, in connection with the sufferings of the "Church of silence."

 

            It is clear, therefore, how wrong is the attempt being made to give the impression that the recognition of the rights of God and of the Church, which existed in the past, is irreconcilable with modern civili­zation, as if the fact of accepting what is just and true for all times constituted a retrogression.

 

            For example, a well-known author alludes to the Middle Ages as follows: "The Catholic Church insists on this principle that truth should have precedence over error, and that, when the true religion is known, it should be aided in its spiritual mission in preference to religions of which the message is more or less halting and feeble and in which error is mingled with truth. That is simply a consequence, flowing from the duty of man to truth. It would, however, be very false to draw from it the conclusion that this principle can be applied only by demanding for the true reli­gion the favors of an absolute power, or the assis­tance or dragonnades, or that the Catholic Church claims from modern societies the privileges she en­joyed in a civilization of the 'sacral' type, like that of the Middle Ages."

 

            In order to do his duty, a Catholic Ruler of a Catholic State need not be an absolute monarch, nor a mere policeman, nor a sacristan, and need not return to the whole organization of the Middle Ages.

 

            Another author objects: "Almost all those who, up to the present, have tried to reflect upon and to examine the problem of religious pluralism have come up against a dangerous axiom, namely, that truth alone has rights, while error has none. As a matter of fact, all see today that this axiom is falla­cious, not indeed because we want to grant rights to error, but simply because we have become aware of the self-evident truth that neither error nor truth, which are abstractions, are the objects of rights, or are capable of having rights, that is, of begetting reciprocal duties between person and person."

 

            It seems to me, on the contrary, that the self-evident truth consists rather in this, namely, that the rights in question are to be found perfectly, as in their sub­jects, in the individuals who are in the possession of the truth, and that other individuals cannot claim equal rights, by reason of their error.

 

            Now, in the Encyclicals we have quoted, it is laid down that the first Subject of these rights is God Himself. From this it follows that only those who obey His commands and who possess His truth and His justice have true rights.

 

            In conclusion, the synthesis of the doctrines of the Church on this subject has been set forth in the most unequivocal fashion, even in our day, in the Letter which the Sacred Congregation for Studies in Semi­naries and Universities sent to the Bishops of Brazil on March 7, 1950. This Letter, which refers continu­ally to the teachings of Pius XII, amongst other things, contains a warning against the errors of renascent Catholic Liberalism which "admits and encourages the separation of the two powers and denies that the Church has any kind of direct power over mixed matters. It affirms that the State ought to show itself indifferent in regard to religion, and recognize the same freedom to truth and error. The Church ought not to enjoy any privileges, favors or rights superior to those recognized to the other religious bodies in the other Catholic countries, and so on.

 

 

CONTRASTING TYPES OF LEGISLATION

 

            Having examined the question from the doctrinal and juridical points of view, I now beg to be permitted to make a brief excursion into the practical domain.  I mean to speak of the difference and the dispropor­tion between the outcry raised against the principles set forth above, when actually realized in the Spanish Constitution, and the slight resentment which, on the other hand, the whole laicized world has shown against the Soviet legislative system that oppresses all religion. And yet, as a result of that system, innum­erable are the martyrs that languish in the concentra­tion camps, in the Steppes of Siberia, in the prisons, not to speak of the legions of those who, at the cost of their lives and of all their blood, have experienced the iniquity of Soviet legislation to the utmost.

 

            Article 124 of Stalin's Constitution, promulgated in 1936, and closely connected with the laws on religious associations of the years 1929 and 1932, reads as follows:

 

            "In order to secure freedom of conscience for the citizens, the Church is separated from the State, and the school from the Church. Freedom of religious profession and freedom of anti-religious propaganda are recognized for all the citizens."

 

            Leaving out of consideration the offense commit­ted against God, against all religion, and against the consciences of believers, by the fact that the Constitu­tion guarantees complete freedom for anti-religious propaganda, which is carried on in the most licenti­ous manner, we must bring out clearly in what con­sists the famous liberty of faith guaranteed by the Bolshevik law.

 

            The existing rules regulating the exercise of forms of worship are gathered together in the law of May 18, 1929, which gives the interpretation of the corresponding article of the 1918 Constitution and in the spirit of which article 124 of the present Constitution is drawn up. Every possibility of religious propaganda is excluded and only freedom for anti-religious prop­aganda is guaranteed.  As regards worship, it is al­lowed only in the interior of Churches. Every possibil­ity of religious formation is forbidden, whether by way of discourses, or through the press, or by means of journals, books, pamphlets, etc. Every form of social and charitable initiative is ruled out, and the organizations that are inspired by these ideals are deprived of every fundamental right to sacrifice them­selves for the good of their neighbors.

 

            In proof of all this, it is enough to read the summary of this state of things given by a Soviet Russian, Orleanskij, in his treatise entitled Law Concerning Religious Associations in the Socialist, Federal, Soviet Russian Republic.

 

            "Liberty of religious profession signifies that the action of believers in the profession of their particular religious dogmas is limited to the believers' sphere itself and is considered as strictly bound up with the religious worship of one or other of the religions tolerated in our State. ... Consequently, any kind of propaganda and every form of recruiting activity on the part of Churchmen or of Religious - and a fortiori of missionaries - cannot be considered as an activity allowed them by the law concerning religious associ­ations, but must be reckoned as going beyond the limits of religious freedom protected by the law. Ac­cordingly, it becomes the object of the penal and civil laws insofar as it is opposed to them."18

           

            The struggle waged against religion is, in addition, carried on also by the State in the domain of all the activities which the practice of the Gospel implies of itself, both in regard to morality and in the social rela­tions between human beings. The Soviet leaders have a clear grasp of the fact that religion is intimately linked up with the life of the individual members of society and the life of society itself. Accordingly, in order to combat religion, they seek to crush every form of religi­ous activity in the field of education, morality and social life. Here is the testimony of a Soviet writer19 concern­ing this point: "The anti-religious propagandist," he states, "must remember that, though Soviet legislation allows every citizen freedom to perform acts of worship, it at the same time restricts the activity of the religious organizations, which have not the right to interfere in the politico-social life of the U.S.S.R.  Religious associ­ations are allowed to occupy themselves uniquely and exclusively with matters concerning the exercise of their worship, and with nothing else.  Priests are not allowed to publish obscurantist publications, or to carry on propaganda for their reactionary and anti-scientific ideas, in the factories or workshops, or in the Kolchoz, the Sovchoz, the clubs and the schools. In virtue of the law of April 8, 1929, religious associations are for­bidden to found sick-funds, co-operative societies or societies for production, and in general are forbidden to make use of the goods at their disposal for purposes other than those comprised within the sphere of religi­ous needs."

 

            Accordingly, before attacking Catholic Rulers who accomplish their bounden duty towards the Religion of their fellow-citizens, the defenders of the "rights of man," should examine a situation so offensive to the dignity of man, no matter what his religion, especially when a third of the total population of the world is crushed beneath that yoke!

 

TOLERATED FORMS OF WORSHIP

 

            The Church also recognizes the necessity in the case of certain Rulers of Catholic countries to tolerate other forms of worship for very serious reasons. "The Church, indeed," Pope Leo XIII teaches, "deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the True Religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State."t;t;t;20

 

            But tolerance does not mean freedom to carry on propaganda which foments religious discord and dis­turbs the tranquil and unanimous possession of the truth and perseverance in the practice of religion, in countries such as Italy, Spain and others.

 

            Referring to the Italian laws on the "admitted forms of worship," Pius XI wrote: "Forms of worship 'toler­ated, permitted, admitted'; We have no desire to raise difficulties about the terms employed. So far as that goes, the question can be elegantly solved by distin­guishing between the Constitution of the State and State legislation. The former is of itself more theoret­ical and doctrinal, and the word 'tolerated' is there more suitable; the latter is intended to be applied to practical life, and one can employ the words 'permit­ted' or 'admitted' in such a context, on condition that they be understood unequivocally.  For that, it must be and remain clearly and unequivocally understood that the Catholic Religion and the Catholic Religion alone, according to the Statute and the Treaties, is the Religion of the State, with the logical and juridical consequences of such a situation according to Con­stitutional law, particularly in regard to propaganda.

 ... It is not admissible that these words should be understood in the sense of absolute freedom of dis­cussion, that is to say, a freedom comprising those forms of discussion that can easily deceive the good faith of poorly-instructed hearers and which quickly degenerate into camouflaged forms of propaganda, becoming just as readily injurious to the Religion of the State and, by that very fact, to the State itself, and precisely in regard to the point which the tradition of the Italian people holds most sacred and its unity most essential."21

 

            But the non-Catholics, who would like to come to evangelize the countries from which the light of the Gospel took its rise and was diffused even unto them, are not satisfied with what the law concedes to them. In opposition to the law and without even submitting to the formalities it lays down, they would like to have unrestricted license to break up the religious unity of Catholic peoples.  And they complain if the Govern­ments close chapels, opened without even the re­quired authorization, or expel the so-called "mis­sionaries" who came into the country for purposes other than those stated in the requests for permission to enter.  It is worthy of note also that, in this campaign, the Communists are among their most vigorous allies and defenders. Thus, those who, in Russia, forbid all religi­ous propaganda and incorporate that principle in the article in the Russian Constitution we have quoted, are, on the other hand, full of zeal in helping every form of Protestant propaganda in Catholic countries.

 

            Unfortunately, in the United State of America, where many non-Catholic brethren are ignorant of certain circumstances both of fact and of law that concern our countries, there are to be found imitators of the Communists' zeal in protesting against our pretended intolerance in regard to the missionaries sent to "evangelize" us.

            But, why, pray, should the Italian authorities be denied the right to do in their own country what the American authorities do in theirs, when they apply, with unyielding firmness, laws made expressly in order to prevent entrance into their territory, or even to expel from it, those who are reckoned as danger­ous by reason of certain ideologies and who are considered capable of doing harm to the free tradi­tions and institutions of the Fatherland?

 

On the other hand, if the believers beyond the Atlantic, who collect funds for their missionaries and for the neophytes won over by their preaching, were aware that the majority of those "converts" are au­thentic Communists, who do not care a lot about the things of religion except when it is a question of insulting Catholicism, while they are deeply interested in enjoying the largesses that arrive abundantly from beyond the ocean, I believe that they would think twice before sending sums that, in the last analysis, only serve to encourage Communism.

 

WITHIN THE TEMPLE AND OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE

 

            There is one last question which frequently forms the subject-matter of present-day discussions. It con­cerns the pretension of those who would like to de­termine of themselves, according to their own judg­ment and their own views, the Church's sphere of action and the limits of her competence, in order to be able to accuse her of "interfering in politics," in case she goes outside that sphere.

 

            This is the pretension of all those who would like to shut up the Church within the four walls of the temple, by separating religion from life, the Church from the world.

 

            Now, the Church must hearken to the command­ments of God rather than to the pretensions of men. "Preach the Gospel to every creature."22  And the Gospel comprises the whole of Revelation with all the consequences that it entails for the moral conduct of man, with regard to his individual life, in his family life, and from the point of view of the good of the community or city (polis).

 

            "Religion and morality," teaches the august Pontiff, "in their close union constitute an indivisible whole. The moral order, the commandments of God, are equally binding in every field of human activity with­out any exception. And as far as these reach out, thither extends also the mission of the Church and therefore also the word of the priest, his teaching, his admonitions, and his counsels to the faithful com­mitted to his care.

 

            "The Catholic Church will never allow herself to be shut up within the four walls of the temple.  The separation between religion and life, between the Church and the world, is contrary to the Christian and Catholic idea."

 

            In particular with apostolic firmness, the Holy Father continues:

 

            "The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave moral responsibility, at least where there is question of electing the men who are called upon to give the country its constitution and its laws, especially those laws that concern, for example, the sanctification of Holydays, marriage, the family, the school, and the regulation of manifold social conditions in accor­dance with equity. It pertains to the Church, therefore, to explain to the faithful the moral duties that spring from that right to vote."23

 

            And the Church carries on this struggle, not from the desire of earthly advantages, nor for the sake of depriving Civil Rulers of that power which the Church cannot and must not aspire to - "He who bestows heavenly kingdoms does not take away earthly ones"24 - but for the reign of Christ, in order that the "Peace of Christ in the Reign of Christ" may be realized. It is for this that the Church unceasingly preaches, teaches and combats unto victory.

 

            It is for the same end that She suffers, weeps and sheds her blood. But the path of sacrifice is precisely that by which the Church is accustomed to attain her triumphs. Pius XII recalled this in his Radio-mes­sage of Christmas, 1941

 

            "We behold today, beloved sons, the God-man, born in a cave in order that He might raise man to the greatness from which he had fallen by his own fault, and place him again on the throne of freedom, justice and honor, which the centuries of false gods had denied him. The foundation of that throne will be Calvary. Its ornament will not be gold or silver, but the Blood of Christ, Divine Blood, which for twenty centuries flows over the world and dyes purple the cheeks of His Spouse, the Church, and purifying, consecrating, sanctifying, glorifying the children of the Church, becomes celestial brightness. O Chris­tian Rome, that Blood is thy Life.”25

 

FOOTNOTES:

 

1          St. Luke 19: 14

2          Translation published by the Daughters of St. Paul. Available from Angelus Press.

3          Cf.  Temoignage Chretien,  Sept 1, 1950 (Quoted in La Documentation Catholique,                                  October 8, 1950).

4          Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. XLIII, p. 568. The translation is that contained in Catholic    Documents, Vol. III, published by the Pontifical Court Club, London.

5          Encyclical Letter, Immortale DeiOn the Christian Constitution of States. (Trans­lation as given      in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, Benziger Brothers).

6          Immortate Dei, Acta LeonisXIll, Vol. V, p. 122. (Translation as given in The Great Encyclical      Letters of Pope Leo XIII, Benziger Brothers).

7          Immortale Dei, Acta Leonis XIII, Vol V, p. 123. (Translation as given in The American      Ecclesiastical             Review, May 1953).

8          Summi Pontificatus (Translation as given in The American Ecclesiastical Re­view, May 1953).

9          Summi Pontificatus.

10        Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. XXXVII, p. 274.

11        Christmas Radio Message, 1941. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. XXXIV, p.13).

12        Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei.

13        Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei.

14        Encyclical Letter, Libertas (Acta Leonis XIII, Vol. VII, p. 231. Translation as given in, The            Great             Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, Benziger Brothers. Available from Angelus Press.)

15        Cf. Wisdom 6:23.

16        English C.T.S. Translation. The quotation from Scripture is from Wisdom 6:4-8.  

17        Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol.XXXV,pp. 13, 14.

18        This work was published in Moscow in 1930. The quotation is taken from page 234.

19        Author of the article entitled Stalin's Constitution and Freedom of Conscience in Sputnik   Antireligioznika, Moscow, 1939, pp. 131-133.

20        Encyclical Letter Immortale DeiActa Leonis XIII, Vol. V. p. 241. Translation as given in, The      Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo, XIII, Benziger Brothers.

21        Letter of May 30th, 1929, to Cardinal Gasparri on the Lateran Treaties.

22        St. Mark 16:15.

23        Lenten Discourse of 1946 to the Parish Priests and Lenten Preachers of Rome. Acta Apostolicae   Sedis, XXXVIII, 187.

24        Hymn for the Feast of the Epiphany.

25        Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 19, 20.