Mutual Understanding
In discussing the present relations existing between Catholics and Protestants in Germany, Protestant theologians have expressed regret at the cleft that still separates them and at the want of true comprehension and sympathy, which exists not only in matters of religion, but extends to other things also, and spoils the social and national life of the country. Surely every Catholic shares in this regret and desires that the adherents of the two Churches in their civil life might find a common ground in the interest of Christianity and of its defence against the inroads of unbelief, in the interest also of patriotism. The fact that Catholics are in the minority in Germany, and especially in Prussia, makes them particularly susceptible to the hardships and friction of a religious conflict. We have seen, in the foregoing pages, that Protestant authors tend to lay the blame for intellectual and social separation upon the Catholics, because they are alleged to have cut themselves off from the intellectual and social life of the country and to display less toleration than the Protestants. These writers assume the superiority of Protestantism with such an absolute certainty that it makes a peculiar impression upon Catholic readers, which is deepened by the tone of well-meant reproof used by these authors. Sell thinks that any proposals tending to mutual understanding must come from the Catholics, because modern Protestantism is incapable of intolerance (p. vi). He supposes, however, that the prohibition to read books placed on the Index makes it absolutely impossible for educated Catholics, with few exceptions, to form an independent opinion regarding the religion of others (p. 252).
Tschackert says that we cannot complain of want of charity on the part of the Protestant clergy, for amongst them the spirit of evangelical liberty reigns supreme, and that the Protestants, being intellectually free, ought to make many allowances for the Catholics of Germany.{1}
Sell remarks that Catholicism is anxious to overpower Protestantism, whilst Protestantism is apt to treat Catholicism with contempt (p. 124). In our discussions we are concerned less with any external struggle, in which one party might "overpower" the other (although, considering the large majority of Protestants in Germany, surely no Catholic could seriously have such a mad idea), than with the contempt shown by Protestants to the Catholic religion as being a debased and for the most part superstitious creed. This contempt is very widely spread and forms a very real obstacle to peace. It is psychologically inevitable that such contempt must increase, more so even than open hostility, the ignorance and want of comprehension that rises like a barrier between Catholics and Protestants. "Freedom" to study the institutions and doctrines of others does not by any means imply an inclination to do so. Men are only too ready to disregard that which they despise; in fact the wish to despise anything is often enough reason to ignore it.
It is notorious that at all times "evangelical freedom" has carefully excluded everything Catholic from its literature, and for most Protestants there exists a strictly observed, though invisible, Index with regard to Catholic books. This has been a great hindrance to a knowledge of the Middle Ages and of the Reformation period, as Protestant scholars themselves admit; and in everyday life we learn, by sad experience, how many grotesque misrepresentations and spiteful caricatures find their way even into the better class of literature, and thus are spread amongst the people. Sell refers to some Catholic writers who, after becoming Protestants, have expressed to him their boundless astonishment at the difference between Protestant doctrine as it really is and as it was represented to them. Instances of the reverse kind are certainly far more numerous. In discussing the reproach brought against the Church of being a foe to nature, F. W. Förster says: "Catholica non leguntur; statements are made in which the exaggerations of some Catholic writers are used with design, not from original sources but at third and fourth hand; and consequently one after another repeats the charge of antagonism to nature, without taking the least trouble to find out if this is really the official teaching of the Church."{2}
"Who amongst us," writes Krogh-Tonning concerning the Protestant theologians in Norway, "knew of these sources of learning? I do not exaggerate when I say: Almost no one. What they fancy they know is information obtained at second, third, or tenth hand, and -- mark this well -- the hand is that of an enemy."{3}
Even Zinzendorf in his later years complained that the Protestants talked a great deal about libertatem, but in praxi they were far less tolerant than the Catholics. And M. Schiele, a modern writer who calls himself "a decided Protestant," but whose eyes were opened at Catholic conventions and similar occasions, writes: "How little do we know the religious strength of Catholicism! How completely is all access to the interior life of Catholics barred to us even by our customary instruction for Confirmation, which is still carried on according to the controversial methods of ancient orthodoxy! How great are the tasks that still await theologians who aim at studying the history of religion! . . . Do we take as much pains to understand Catholicism as we do to study the Vedas, Buddhism, or Islam?"{4}
Although nothing can excuse this attitude toward what even Protestants acknowledge to be the oldest and most imposing form of Christianity, we must not overlook the fact that it is more difficult for a Protestant to arrive at a complete comprehension of Catholic thought and life than for a Catholic to form a correct opinion of Protestant ideas. It is true of course that the Church forms one great, visible whole, stating plainly what is universal and unalterable in her teaching, whilst in Protestantism we have to deal with a multitude of independent and variously shaded forms of religion. Still, that which may be considered common to all forms of Protestantism, and may be compared with the Catholic religion, is after all something so universal, and in our opinion so little, that we can grasp it without any great exertion. But in Catholicism there are so many religious thoughts and laws, so many institutions connected with cultus and equity, whilst the dogmatic element sometimes appears so inextricably interwoven with matters of history and civilization, that a real, lifelike comprehension of it is extremely difficult for one of another faith.
The Church is Catholic, i.e., universal, and universal also in that she has laid hold of all the elements of religion and human life and made them serve the purpose of Christianity. In her are welded together, so as to form one vast whole, faith and philosophical speculation, mysticism and the impulse to activity, the solitude of the desert and the publicity of life in the world, ascetic severity and artistic display, individualism and strict obedience, ardent devotion and a stern sense of justice. All these apparent contrasts which are otherwise found distributed amongst different religions are in the Catholic Church welded together into one tremendous whole. Aristotle says that it is possible to judge of the parts from the whole, but not of the whole from the parts. Thus a Catholic, living in the whole of his religion, can interpret its manifold organization and understand the mistaken, extreme construction of false doctrines. He can grasp with equal facility the pietistic as well as the rationalistic side of Protestantism, the English High Church and the Salvation Army. But a Protestant surveying the Catholic Church continually discovers something new and strange; what pleases a Puritan is ridiculed by an advanced thinker and arouses the repugnance of an "artistic temperament."
With regard to Catholic morals we must notice, first of all, that in the scientific works dealing with this subject, and especially in those intended for the use of confessors, there is very little to be found concerning the peculiar sanction and life imparted to morals by their connection with the cultus, the asceticism, and the whole life of the Church. The saying "magna vivimus, non loquimur" still applies to a great extent to the moral life of the Church. When the unfair controversial methods of our opponents drive us to reflection, we often have laboriously to collect the rays of light shining forth from these departments of the life of the Church, in order to do justice to the magnitude of the active force. For instance, modern Protestants often miss, in the Catholic view of marriage, that which uplifts and impresses the mind; and yet, quite apart from direct testimony derived from our liturgy and doctrine, the raising of marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, the stress laid upon its unity and indissoluble character, and the solemn way in which the voluntary conclusion and the natural consummation of marriage are insisted upon, form a far better guarantee for the perfection of married life and the moral equality of the wife than any number of pleasing descriptions and panegyrics could supply. How inadequate an idea of the motives and achievements of the religious life, and of the abundant activity both of the individual and of the community in countless religious houses, is given by what is said and written on this subject!
Humility and self-effacement are considered so much to be the only ideal in the life of the cloister that even the important considerations of apologetics or social statistics receive very little attention. Casuistical investigations regarding the practice of fasting, the observance of Sunday, etc., certainly reveal very little of the religious and moral spirit pervading the solemn and joyful periods of the ecclesiastical year. It is only then when one studies the liturgy and our devotional literature that he discovers, under the dry exterior of casuistical rules, a stream of vigorous life, giving rise to free moral activity.
The idea that, owing either to the Index or to their own reserve, the Catholics know of the Protestant intellectual life of the country less than do the Protestants of the Catholic, is easily refuted by another very simple consideration. Modern fiction and scientific literature, the daily press and public education, are stamped in our country in a paramount degree with Protestant ideas, and even the Catholic who would wish to stand aloof cannot avoid being affected by these Protestant influences. A Protestant, however, is far from being equally compelled to acquaint himself with the thought of Catholics. Every Catholic schoolboy reads the classics, which are with hardly an exception Protestant; every Catholic student of philology and history uses Protestant authors, and is reasonably afraid of failing in his examinations if he cannot show a knowledge of Kant and Schopenhauer, whilst his Protestant colleague feels no necessity to study St. Thomas Aquinas. Moreover, every Catholic inevitably comes into contact with Protestantism at lectures, at the theatre, in reading belles-lettres and the daily papers, and in the general tone of society; for in our country all these things are overwhelmingly determined by Protestant influence. Thus a Catholic can form a fair opinion of the intellectual life of Protestants, whereas the Protestant cannot by any means derive from these sources a true idea of what is really Catholic; indeed too often he is confirmed in his inherited, erroneous views.
It is not my aim here to trace the reasons for this state of affairs; but when we consider the numerical and political ascendancy of Protestants in our country, there is no difficulty in recognizing the coercion that lies in these factors. The Index would be powerless to overcome this constant influence, even if it aimed at so doing, but it is a well-known fact that the Index does not forbid the reading of newspapers or secular books, nor attendance at lectures, plays, etc. The tendency of modern journalism is to lay undue emphasis upon and to laud all that is new and negative, whilst it depreciates what is traditional and positive; of course this tendency is more injurious to Catholicism than to Protestantism. Moreover, it is quite a mistake to suppose that a dispensation from the prohibition to read books on the Index can be obtained only as a special favour, or that it is granted to laymen only under protest.
I do not wish to shut my eyes to the fact that amongst scientific Protestant theologians increased interest is now taken in Catholicism and a greater impartiality shown in its criticism. In historical studies on the subject, both of the primitive and of the later Church, Catholics and Protestants meet on common ground. Protestants attend lectures on the history of the Reformation given by a Catholic professor, and Catholics are found present at courses on documents and investigations bearing upon early Christian literature. With regard to biblical exegesis, however, not nearly so much attention is paid by Protestants to Catholic works as is paid by Catholics to Protestant books on the subject. Very little interest in, and comprehension of, our dogmatic theology is displayed by Protestants, although it is from this that any true insight into Catholicism as a whole must be derived.
Toleration in General
With reference to the behaviour of the many millions in Germany who belong to different religions, but are to be brought into touch with one another, Tschackert advises that the matters of division between them ought to be placed as much as possible into the background, but without seeking to hide the points of difference. The manner in which this well-meaning theologian views these matters of division, at a moment when he is making conciliatory proposals for peace, is characteristic of practical toleration as understood by Protestants. He begins with the admonition to the Protestants, already quoted, in which he says that they, being "intellectually free," can make "an infinite number of excuses" for Catholics. They must leave off hunting up grievances in the past: such as offences committed against Protestants by the Pope, the clergy, the Jesuits, and Catholic governments; the bitter expression occurring in the Roman Catechism implying that the Protestants are guided by the devil rather than by the Holy Ghost; the executions of Protestants, the horrors of the Thirty Years' War, -- mentioning among further matters the epithet "Monstrum teterrimum" applied to Luther in the Roman Breviary."{5}
These are the instances given of Catholic intolerance in the past. If we wish to compare with them the old charges that Catholics might bring against Protestants, there is, according to Tschackert, only one, -- viz., "that Luther called the Pope Antichrist"; but this, he adds, is excusable when we take the manners of the time into consideration! If he assumes that no reasonable Protestant nowadays would use such an expression, let him remember that so highly educated a Protestant as John Henry Newman confessed that, until shortly before his conversion, he believed the Pope to be the Antichrist.{6} It may be mentioned here that the corresponding strong term, monstrum teterrimum, is no longer to be found in the Breviary now in use. Might we not have expected some allusion to the countless deeds of violence perpetrated by Protestant govermnents during the Reformation period, such as the ruthless plundering of churches and the oppression and persecution of defenceless religious women? Were not Luther's inflammatory writings against the Pope and his "minions" and Justus Jonas's challenge to exterminate "idolatry" direct incentives to such violent deeds?{7} Can all the blame of the Thirty Years' War be laid upon the Catholics, and did not the Protestant princes sin most grievously against the peace of the country by conspiring with foreign powers, and among themselves, to annihilate Catholicism?
It is, however, more important and more interesting to see what grounds of complaint the one Church can bring against the other at the present time. Tschackert advises the Protestants to put aside the annoyance felt for nearly twenty-five years at the fact that the Catholic party has had the deciding vote in the imperial parliament, to the great vexation of the Protestant majority of the population (p. 42). We should expect, after hearing of "martyrdoms" and "horrors" in the past, that Tschackert would be able to refer to some startling injustice on the part of Catholics in our own day, but apparently he has nothing more than his own annoyance to bring forward as a cause of separation. After all, what can a united party do better and more profitably than give a deciding vote where others are at variance? Any annoyance at it can proceed only from a deep-seated aversion to the fact that there is so strong a Catholic minority in existence, and that it refuses to be condemned to silence on political matters. Has the Catholic party offended the Protestant majority by any unfair or outrageous demands, or by a refusal to coöperate in important legislative measures? That this was not the case in the days of its alleged "supremacy" is acknowledged by all responsible leaders of the German government.
The second admonition, to treat Catholics with consideration, is equally characteristic. "We must set aside all our dislike of Roman Catholic credulity, the veneration of saints, the worship of Mary, and many other things inwardly most repugnant to our Protestant consciousness." Here again we have no provocation on the Catholic, but subjective feelings on the Protestant side! Tschackert himself admits that these things belong to the inner life of the Church when he says: "If the Catholics want to keep all this, it is their affair and does not concern us at all." Yet shortly afterwards he advises the Catholics to give up "everything calculated to cause annoyance, everything that offends our Protestant consciousness." How is this possible when so many things, "that do not concern Protestants at all," nevertheless annoy and offend them deeply? When such a demand is made, all that Tschackert, Harnack, and others say, about preserving the character of each Church and the impossibility of union, appears illusory. Would Tschaekert venture to suggest in such general terms to Protestants that they should give up "everything that offends the Catholic consciousness"?
As far as we have gone, therefore, Tschackert has discovered no recent instance of offensive action on the part of Catholics, but soon after he refers to the "notorious brawls" over graveyards, to the "outrageous audacity" of the clerical press, and to the "bitter style of controversy's adopted by men like Evers and Majunke. I admit that in this respect some offence has been given by Catholics, and Tschackert himself does not deny that the better sort of Catholic journalism has publicly recognized and regretted this fact. As to the disputes about the right of burial in cemeteries, the following considerations should be kept in view: (1) The question turns as a rule, especially in what was formerly French territory, upon decisions and applications of the civil law, long familiar to the communities affected and regarded by the Catholic part of the population as long-standing rights, in opposition to later claims that have not always been made with any degree of tact. (2) From the point of view of Canon Law, burial in a consecrated graveyard is permitted only to those who have died at peace with the external body of the Church, and this principle is connected with the idea and discipline of the visible Church. Exclusion from such burial is a disciplinary measure that is by no means an expression of opinion regarding the ultimate destiny of the departed. For instance, according to the strict rules of the Church, no one killed in a duel can be buried with the rites of the Church, although he may have made his confession and received absolution. This regulation, made in the interests of the religious community and of public order, is intended to inflict the loss of those honours paid by the Church, for which the dead man did not care during his life. If the Church were to allow Protestants the right of burial in Catholic graveyards, she would be treating them better than her own children, to whom she does not grant the privilege indiscriminately, but, after examining their way of life. (3) According to the old liturgical idea a graveyard is added to the church so as to form part of the consecrated place. Catholics set a higher value upon consecrations and blessings than Protestants, and as the Church never forces the means of grace upon any one against his will, she tries to limit the use of places and things which partake even remotely in the consecration of the altar and sacrament to those who are, by reason of their faith, susceptible to this mystical influence. In Protestant circles a contrary disposition prevails, altogether hostile to "mysticism" in matters of public worship.
The further we go, the more curious we become to learn what faults and discourtesies Tschackert will find on the Protestant side to censure, and to commend to the indulgence of Catholics. We can discover nothing but a request addressed to the Evangelical Alliance to remember "its primary object and to strive to suppress in its members all display of hostility." He lavishes praise upon the establishment and general principles of this alliance, but he sees in its activity a constant danger "of overstepping the mark and of promoting strife" (p. 42, etc.). This activity of the Evangelical Alliance certainly is the most disturbing element in the domain of religion in Germany; but did it not suggest itself to Tschackert when admonishing the Catholics to examine the Protestant conscience on a few points? Against the "graveyard scandals" and other difficulties connected with marriage and cultus, the Catholics can set instances of much worse and even legal intolerance in Brunswick and Saxony, as well as of aggressive proceedings on the part of individuals. What Evers, a convert, has written against Luther is nothing at all in comparison with the public controversial effect of von Hoensbroech's writings and speeches against the Catholic Church. The many bitter polemical pamphlets, such as Grassmann published in enormous editions, have no parallel on the Catholic side. The daily press is extremely powerful, but it is so completely in the hands of Protestants and of Jews that, in comparison with the innumerable articles written against the Church, the occasional discourtesies of which Catholic papers make themselves guilty are hardly worth notice. Publications hostile to the Church delight in horrible accounts of convent life and of bad priests, often forcing upon Catholics the recourse to legal measures in self-defence.
Upon the subject of proselytism, Tschackert made a few remarks in his previous chapter revealing some embarrassment on his part. After laying down the principle that all attempts to make converts should cease on both sides, referring, without giving proofs, to the zeal shown by individual Catholics, he has to acknowledge that a Protestant society has been founded to spread the Gospel amongst Catholics (p. 38). Tschackert remarks in a conciliatory fashion that this society attracts very little attention and will probably never beeome popular. But the very existence of such an association is apt to give provocation, especially as the Catholics believe that they have possessed the Gospel for some fifteen hundred years longer, and have preserved it better, than the Protestants. The soothing suggestion that in Germany it is Protestantism that must look after its present possessions is at variance with his statement that "far more people pass from the Catholic into the Protestant Church than vice versa" (p. 35). Still more unsatisfactory is his excuse for the Los-von-Rom movement.{8} Even the most prejudiced witness must acknowledge that anything like such a reckless and organized attack by Catholics upon "the Sister Church" -- thus Tschackert proposes to designate the two religions -- is not; only unheard of, but inconceivable. The very name Los-von-Rom, "free from Rome," shows beyond all question that the aim of this movement is proselytism. The enormous sums of money raised in Germany to support this movement -- the Gustav-Adolf-Verein alone contributed, according to Pastor Fischer, in ten years over 15,000,000 forms -- show that, when it is a matter of opposing Rome, the odium of proselytism does not worry such societies. Tschackert's expressions on this subject seem rather mild, especially when we remember how, in speaking of foreign missions, he insists that Catholic missionaries must not intrude upon regions where Protestant missions are established, but limit themselves peaceably to their own sphere of action (p. 115). I cannot here discuss the unfairness of this reproach, or show whether it is borne out by facts; I would only ask whether greater consideration is due to Madagascar and Uganda than to our own country, and whether a scrupulous regard of the rights of ownership of each Church is not very emphatically required in dealing with our own citizens.
Regarding the Evangelical Alliance, Tschackert and Sell both acknowledge that it is a Protestant association antagonistic to Catholicism; the latter does so openly, the former, less directly, by trying to impress upon the Alliance the idea that its "chief task" is to do positive work amongst its members. If Catholics would follow the Protestants' example, and found a similar association, Germany would at once be divided into two hostile camps. In every argument, and especially in religious controversy, each party claims to be in the right; hence, if there is to be real civil equality, it must be laid down as a fixed principle that no religious organization may be of a combative nature. Many Protestants have realized this truth, and they cannot but feel ashamed that, with regard to this formal basis for religious liberty, it has been the ostensibly free and tolerant Protestantism with its Evangelical Alliance that has transgressed, and not Catholicism, which is accused of being far more narrow and quarrelsome.
If we look at the actual foundation of the Alliance, Sell tells us that it aims at "warding off the attacks of political Catholicism" and at fighting, not for any one form of religion, but "to maintain the rights of all," in opposition to a party that rejects, and must reject as a matter of principle, all forms of religion except its own (p. 212). I should like to ask when and where the Evangelical Alliance has upheld the rights of Catholics? If, in speaking of principle, Sell is referring to dogmatic opinions, he is guilty of an equivocation; for he is here discussing the rights of the various Churches in the state, and Protestantism, too, rejects the Catholic Church from the point of view of dogma. Has the Catholic party ever rejected the right of Protestants to political equality or even attempted to make an "attack" upon its rights? Neither Sell nor Tschackert in their entire discussion adduce a single instance in which Protestant rights have been really threatened. Tschackert states that the Evangelical Alliance was established at a time when the Prussian state had made one concession after another to the Roman Church, when Bismarck had invited Pope Leo XIII to act as umpire between Germany and Spain regarding tbe insignificant Caroline Islands, thus adding greatly to the prestige of the Papacy, and when the Catholic party was making its influence felt on the most vital interests of the German Empire, whilst there was no one on the Protestant side able to say a word against all this, for both the Church assemblies and the synods were forced to be silent" (p. 43).
Apart from the complaint that the Catholic party was making its influence felt in the affairs of the German Empire, which cannot be resented since the government urgently invited its coöperation, there are here charges against the only guilty ones, -- the Prussian state, Bismarck, and the Church assemblies and synods; but Tschackert cannot refer to any attacks made by political Catholicism which would have necessitated the organization of a fighting body. According to his own impressions, the meetings of the Alliance became occasions for "furious agitation," and the speeches against ultramontane Catholicism degenerated into a stormy flood of empty phrases," which unhappily were welcomed with applause "by the majority of the audience" (p. 44). If we sum up even cursorily all that the Evangelical Alliance has said and written in the course of its agitation against ultramontanism, we must say that, whereas its very establishment and existence constituted a danger to religious peace, its activity has given rise to so profound a disturbance of that peace that German Protestants, desirous of boasting of their toleration, must condemn this activity with much more unanimity and vigour than they have done hitherto.
Tschackert thinks that it ought not to be difficult for German Catholics "to grasp the bands of their brethren, the Protestants, in spite of all that separates them" (p. 48). It is not difficult for us to grasp these hands if they are offered to us in an honourable spirit, and there are, thank God, not only many individuals, but many associations on both sides that understand each other and work together with mutual confidence. But to speak plainly, and alluding to the Evangelical Alliance, I cannot help mentioning the painful occasion when the hand of all Catholic Germany was stretched out in a friendly spirit and roughly rejected by the Evangelical Alliance. Conventions of Catholics have always avoided anything that could disturb religious harmony. The Catholic Day at Essen, in 1900, particularly and through the mouth of Cardinal Fischer, invited all Christians in a most conciliatory manner to work harmoniously together. The Evangelical Alliance, at a General Assembly held soon after, rejected this invitation as "dangerous to our country and to the Evangelical Church," seeing in it "nothing but a crafty attempt to strengthen the power of the party representing Roman interests." Even Protestant papers regretted this resolution as unjustifiable and as manifesting bitter animosity. The Deutsche Tageszeitung asked: "To what lengths shall we be led if, in religious disputes, we question the honesty of our opponents and impute to the adherents of another faith motives for the existence of which there is no evidence at all?"{9}
It is indeed indispensable to every understanding, and a most elementary Christian duty, to believe the explicit assertions of others who have done nothing to incur any suspicion of insincerity. When, however, we see that assemblies of Catholics, in spite of all asseverations to the contrary, are assumed to be merely opportunities for displaying the power of the party, we must acknowledge that the people in Germany are still far from having arrived at this indispensable basis of any agreement on matters of religion.
The Question of Civil Equality
In his one-sided consideration of the things of modern times that tend to separate Catholics and Protestants, Tschackert omits to mention, as grievances of Catholics, the Kulturkampf, and all that at the present day justifies their complaint that there is no equality in matters of religious practice. No one desirous of understanding the religious position in Germany and the prospects of a friendly approach between the two parties can shut his eyes to these facts, unpleasant though they may appear. In speaking of the foundation of the Evangelical Alliance, the question was raised whether Protestantism in Germany was really constrained to take this step in self-defence against attacks, just at a time when Catholicism had emerged from a violent struggle of ten years duration, and whether it was not rather the indignation at concessions by the state that impelled large numbers of Protestants to new exhibitions of religious hostility. Sell passingly alludes to the Kulturkampf, describing it, very mildly, as an attempt "once more to return to the practical supremacy of the state over all Churches, which has now been given up." There is, however, no need of showing that the conflict was chiefly, in many respects exclusively, aimed at the Catholic Church. The first Chancellor may have been influenced by purely political motives, but he seriously suspected danger from Catholicism, suggested by the hatred of Rome felt by Protestants and Liberals. During the struggle he relied upon Protestant prejudices and disposition, which were strong enough to overcome in Conservatives all fears for their own Church, and in Liberals their otherwise ostentatious enthusiasm for freedom. Bismarck saw subsequently that it was impossible to carry on the government in opposition to the conscience of two-fifths of the population, and his sound political insight discovered a way out of the difficulty. If we try to-day to realize the various incidents of the struggle, the violent measures taken to repress purely religious convictions and actions, the fines and sentences of imprisonment, the expulsion of harmless communities of women who took no part in politics, we can easily understand that the impression produced by all these things still remains with the Catholic population and cannot be wiped out by merely ignoring the facts. To talk of the state as having "continually favoured" the Catholic Church is mockery in the ears of Catholics.
Harnack rightly lays down as an indispensable condition of peace that "the strictest justice must everywhere be observed, so as to secure to each his own, and not to interfere with the inner life of the Churches." During the Kulturkampf this principle was in abeyance, and the treatment of the Jesuits shows us how hard it is even now for Protestants to adhere to it consistently. Although Tschackert accepts the principle that things affecting the clergy and religious orders belong to the internal administration of the Church, he tries to show Catholics what they need of religions orders and what they do not need, and he approves also of the control which, according to the law still in force, the state continues to exercise.
In order to give a true idea of the condition of affairs, and at the same time to show how little real ground the Protestants have for fearing that any further rapprochement would give the minority unfair advantage, it would be necessary to include in the discussion the general kind of pushing into the background of which Catholics complain. This is connected, partly, with the historical development of the Prussian state and its inhabitants, partly with the traditional idea of "Protestant superiority," and with deeply rooted maxims of administration, so that Protestants control the government, and the material and intellectual resources at its disposal, to a degree altogether disproportionate to their numbers. I have already alluded to the petty hindrances, so contrary to the spirit of liberty, that are put in the way of Catholic worship in some states possessing a Protestant majority; such things are acknowledged by both Liberals and Conservatives to be anachronisms. Considering how sensitive men are nowadays in what touches their honour and liberty, and how keen a sense of justice is possessed by the people, and how much intellectual and material progress has been made by the lower classes, we see at once that the demand for full civil equality is inevitably spreading and obtaining recognition. I lay no stress here upon the conviction, universal amongst Catholics, that they are pushed into the background; but they may fairly feel aggrieved and out of humour at the fact that almost always whenever any step is taken towards removing the present inequality, either in government offices or at the universities and in the elementary school system, there is at once an indignant protest or a feeling of concern and alarm. Much intolerance is displayed, for instance, by Protestant towns that refuse to build schools for Catholic minorities or to provide religious instruction, even in cases where the government recogmzes the need of it. What unfair treatment is meted out to the rising generation in Prussia, where seventy thousand Catholic children are being taught in Protestant schools and only seventeen thousand Protestants in Catholic schools!{10}
We need only reflect upon the actual consequences of the present state of affairs to become convinced that Catholics have not much chance of overestimating their importance in Germany. After the enormous material loss suffered by the Church through secularization, there followed an increasing slighting and setting aside of Catholics from all share in civil and intellectual life; the result in both cases was greatly to diminish their wealth, and so to check their progress in every department of higher education. During the Kulturkampf still further obstacles were put in the way of any material advance on the part of German Catholics, even though their religious consciousness and their tendency to hold together were intensified. Every one knows that there is a sort of glory attached to influential posts at court and in the government, so that the recommendations, testimonials, etc., of those holding such posts are of great advantage to the party to which they belong. This kind of prestige gives to the favoured classes assurance and confidence and a knowledge of "how to get there"; whereas Catholics, however talented, when competing for desirable appointments, are hampered by the novelty and strangeness of their aim, the uncertainty of their chances, and a timidity that is the result of much sad experience. There is no "mechanical equality's within sight for Catholics for some time to come, and even were it carried into effect in due proportion to the population, in all probability Protestant supremacy would in external matters soon again make itself felt. If we think of the effect of the celibacy of Catholic priests there is nothing on the Catholic side comparable to the recruits supplied so abundantly by Protestant parsonages to all the professions. The very earnestness and practical energy with which the Catholic Church keeps in view the future life and the supernatural, must be in itself antagonistic to a great prosperity in, and a firm hold upon, this world. No Protestant at the present day may excuse his fears of religious equality by alleging alarm lest the Catholics eventually obtain a majority, either by simple numerical increase or by proselytism. Nor do such fears harmonize with the fact that Protestant controversialists profess to agree with atheists and socialists in the belief that Catholic dogmatic teaching, and especially submission to a "curialistic" Papacy, is at last dead and gone, and that the Church has lost all living hold upon mankind!
It is very surprising that a man like Sell, who deals so fully with so-called curialistic, political Catholicism, in his account of the same shows that he does not possess even the most elementary acquaintance with documents bearing on the subject. He maintains that political Catholicism reached its full development under Leo XIII, and describes it as "an attempt to win the recognition of all states and nations for Curialism, and eventually to give it a dominating position, since with all its internal and external political resources, it has already secured in the Council supremacy over the Church," (p. 77). In contrast to Curialism, according to Sell, stands the purely religious Catholicism that "adheres to the principle that in all secular matters the secular power is independent of the Church" (p. 174). Does Sell not know that the Vatican Council's definition of Infallibility bears a purely religious character and, according to the judgment of shrewd Protestants, tends more to deepen the line between dogma and politics than to obliterate it? Can we not trace in the life and actions of Leo XIII an advance beyond certain "curialistic" traditions and an ever-increasing, impartial comprehension of the age in which we live? Did not this Pope in his encyclical expressly declare that the state, and not the Church, is the supreme authority in purely secular matters, and is not this precisely what Sell describes as real religious Catholicism?{11} If it is, Sell's hostility to political Catholicism seems to depend essentially upon an unscientific conception of it.
Sell, like many other Protestants, bases his last argument against religious equality upon the "inward want of consideration" that a Catholic must necessarily, for dogmatic reasons (his being the only religion assuring salvation), feel towards Protestantism, and this must, in Sell's opinion, be counterbalanced by a judicial preponderance of Protestantism (p. 182, note). No mutual understanding is possible, he thinks, unless Catholics regard the establishment of the Protestant religion as morally binding and renounce all attempt to enforce the Canon Law on points where modern legislation is at variance with it. "This does not involve any renunciation on the part of a Catholic of his fund of religious truth. We on our side begin by granting more, for we grant Christian equality, equality in the sight of God. This does not exclude all argument as to the greater measure of truth, an argument which in our own camp certain groups carry on with one another" (p. vi). These statements are not remarkable for lucidity, and the same may be said of Tschackert's words: "The German Evangelical Church expects to be regarded as a Sister Church by German Catholics. We do not expect a judicial recognition of title, but a moral recognition; it is the attitude of mind upon which we lay stress, since upon it depends the practical attitude" (p. 46). I think it well to distinguish here between the dogmatic, the moral, and the civil or judicial recognition of the two creeds.
1. A dogmatic recognition of Protestantism by the Catholic Church is equivalent to what Tschackert calls a "judicial" recognition, which, he says, no one could expect. It is in fact a fundamental doctrine of the Church that Christ established only one religious body possessing the means of salvation, and that this body is the Catholic Church.
When the Evangelical Alliance demanded that Catholics should declare Protestantism to be a legitimate form of Christianity the Kreuzzeitung replied: "This demand can be justified only if the Evangelical Alliance is also willing to recognize Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity, and to do this is out of the question. We, as Evangelical Christians, would protest most decidedly against it."{12} It is therefore incorrect to say that Protestants "begin by making larger concessions." All who believe in an essentially undivided form of Christianity, revealed once for all by Christ, must inevitably deny the dogmatic and Christian equality of various Churches. But Sell, too, contradicts himself. If one Church possesses "a greater measure of truth," there can be no equality of religious rights; and yet he proceeds unconcernedly to identify the "perfect" with the "generally accepted" form of Christianity, the "best" with the "true." The same may be said of the organization of the Churches as of the measure of truth that they contain. Christ bestowed definite rights and powers upon the one Church that He founded; therefore, if the official Protestant Church is "an institution of merely human origin," as Sell admits (p. 224, note), it cannot consistently demand that the Catholic Church should recognize it as having "Christian equality." But it is plain that Sell will not allow that the Church of Rome possesses equal rights with his own, if there is still in him any of Luther's spirit, which he regards as the true principle of Protestantism.
Moreover, Rome looks upon Protestants as Christians in error, exactly as Sell looks upon curialistic Catholics (p. 211). It was precisely because Pius IX acknowledged the validity of baptism administered by those of other faiths, provided the proper form be used, that he spoke of Protestants also as belonging to his flock and subject to his jurisdiction, -- an expression that Tschackert regards as an insult. It was, however, prompted by a very beautiful and conciliatory spirit, and as it can have no practical effect upon Protestants, it ought to offend them only if in every case the Pope considered the averse attitude of non-Catholics as subjectively and morally reprehensible.
2. What is meant by moral recognition? Every educated Catholic at the present time knows the claim of the Church, that in her alone salvation can be found, does not mean that separation from the visible Church is invariably a moral offence involving exclusion from salvation. The phrase has an objective meaning, referring to the actual authority given by Christ to the Church; but as all men do not perceive her privileged position, and as the visible Church comes into contact with some men only in an imperfect way and with others not at all, non-Catholics and even non-Christians who live in pardonable ignorance, following their conscience and the inward grace given them, are subjectively free from sin, though remaining outside the Church. This is by no means a new theory, but it has been more clearly formulated and established in the minds of the people in general since other bodies of Christians, separated from the Church, have been founded and have grown by progeny and propaganda. Pius IX frequently expressed this tenet, and it is taught in the Catholic Catechisms.{13} In judging our fellowmen with regard to their moral condition we are certainly not more severe than the Protestants. In fact, occasionally it seems as if the difficulty or impossibility of appreciating the personal standpoint of others, that was formerly felt in dealing with heretics, now causes orthodox Catholics to be treated with unfair severity. Herrmann, at least, appears to be convinced that every Roman Catholic and every one whose faith is based upon authority is inwardly insincere and is carrying on a sort of game with religion.{14}
3. The civil or judicial equality of Catholics and Protestants is not only accepted by us, but we regard it, as I have already said, as a fundamental principle of that form of government which we are most anxious to have, since it will secure us religious equality. We respect the constitution and organization of the state, not merely under compulsion but as a matter of conscience; and as this includes the right of the Protestant Church to exist, we must accept this right as "morally binding" upon us. The Canon Law now in force does not interfere with any such attitude on our part, and the Syllabus, too, protests only against giving general preference to a constitution that secures equal religious rights, rather than to one that is purely Catholic.
A word more must be said on a condition that Tschackert thinks very regrettable; viz., the tendency of German Catholics to associate only with members of their own Church. Peaceable and friendly intercourse between the adherents of different Churches is in many respects less easy now than it was in the time of Romanticism and the years following it. The present growth of class hatred, of anti-Semitism and exaggerated nationalism, shows that while outwardly men increasingly meet and associate, inwardly they are becoming more estranged. I have already said enough to reveal some facts in modern history and in modern public life that have inevitably caused Catholics to cling closely together and to stand aloof from others. The embittered feeling that prevailed against them during the Kulturkampf drove them, either by actual or by moral force, from many previously neutral circles. Over and above the evidence to which I have referred, I might give many instances of the persistence, even to the present day, of many odious prejudices which make it very difficult for Catholics to share in social intercourse. This is especially the case in districts inhabited by more Protestants than Catholics. In Catholic circles the feeling towards Protestants is not one of prejudice or aversion, but rather a kind of timid or distrusting reserve. Wherever Protestants have overcome this feeling by making friendly advances, there are as a rule no obstacles on the Catholic side to joining in common interests and to a mutual understanding. A proof of this is the development of Christian trades unions, in joining which Protestant workmen showed much more hesitation and reluctance than their Catholic colleagues. Against recent charges of religious exclusiveness it was usually easy to point out a Protestant counterpart of the Catholic instance, and the further we carry our investigations into districts where Catholics predominate the more plainly can we trace a tendency to exclusiveness amongst Protestants. Of course it is not possible to speak of exclusiveness in the case of associations established solely for religious purposes or closely connected with religious undertakings. We shall have to allude to this side of the question again, when we discuss the relation between religious belief and civil life.
{1} Tschackert, pp. 38, 41.
{2} Sexualethik und Sexualpädagogik, 2d ed., 1909, p. 225.
{3} Erinnerungen, p. 276.
{4} Evangel. Freiheit, VIII, 1908, 491. A. von Ruiville remarks that on reading and studying Catholic works in their original form "he was filled with amazement," perceiving that from his early life he had been falsely instructed about the Church. "I saw," he says, "that the teachers, pastors, and theologians to whom I owed my knowledge understood nothing about Catholicism, and yet did not hesitate to condemn it in the harshest terms, even to pour out their sarcasm upon it. This offended my whole scientific instinct" (Zurück zur hl. Kirche, p. 24). Cardinal Newman, after his conversion, expressed himself still more strongly with regard to the falsehoods and prejudices fostered by English Protestantism, and actually charged his fellow countrymen with possessing a "traditionary view" of Catholics, which involves "bearing false witness." "To Protestantism false witness is the principle of propagation" (Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics, 1851, p. 122).
{5} Modus vivendi, pp. 41. 48.
{6} Apologia pro vita sua, 1902, p. 7.
{7} See N. Paulus, Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit, 1905.
{8} Cf. supra, p. 10.
{9} Cf. Verhandlungen der 63. Generalversammlung des Katholiken Deutschlands, Essen, 1906, pp. 417, 670, seq.
{10} Cf. the remarks made by Jentsch, p. 452, seq., and the evidence that he adduces; also an article by Judge Marx, entitled "Der Fall Landsberg," in the Köln. Volkszeitung, 1911.
{11} Cf. infra, Part II, Chap. VIII; also the utterances of Pius X quoted there.
{12} Kreuzzeitung, Oct.14, 1906; cf. Verhandlungen der Generalversammlung zu Essen, 1906, p. 672.
{13} See infra, p. 98, and Part II, Chap. VIII.
{14} Röm. u. evangel. Sittliclikeit, pp. 75, 79. To show the difference between objective and subjective opinions, I may remind my readers that in the Heidelberg Catechism of the present day the Mass is described as "accursed idolatry." If all Protestants who retain this material definition really accused Catholics of subjective idolatry it would of course be almost impossible for the adherents of the two religions to live peaceably together.