- Pope Leo XIII outlines a set of erroneous opinions held by some among the American clergy. Among them, he enumerates the following:
- Softening or de-emphasizing doctrines which may prove distasteful to non-Catholics, as if matters of Faith were theories of philosophy, not divinely revealed.
- Complete omission of points of doctrine, burying them in oblivion, all for the sake of conversions; “let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be by any other road than that which Christ has pointed out.”
- Subjecting ecclesiastical disciplines to personal scrutiny, as if they are harmful to individuals.
- Introducing false liberty (such as is at the basis of the American Constitution) into the Church; freedom of thought, of press, etc. The following are consequences of the preceding:
- The rejection of spiritual direction by those who rashly assert that the light of the Holy Ghost is poured more liberally upon the individual Faithful today than at other times; certainly a corollary of the desire to introduce liberalism and individualism into the Church.
- Extolling natural virtues over the supernatural.
- The novel division of “active” and “passive” virtues; that virtue can be “passive” in the first place – by this is meant evangelical virtue – and that they are less suited for our times than “active” virtues; that virtue is thus to be adapted from age to age.
- As a result, the disparaging of religious orders and vows; that vows are for “weak minds”.
- That there is to be a distinction of praise between those religious who lead active lives and those who lead contemplative lives.
- That religious associations without vows are to be more esteemed than those with vows.
- That more modern methods of propagating the Faith, especially amicable conferences with non-Catholics, are to be preferred to the more ancient methods that the Church has always used (which are to be moreover abandoned); Leo XIII does not condemn conferences, but he does this is in a conditional manner.
- “For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held. Now, Beloved Son, few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that is thus conceived, if we but consider the character and origin of the doctrine which the Church hands down to us.”
- “Nor is the suppression to be considered altogether free from blame, which designedly omits certain principles of Catholic doctrine and buries them, as it were, in oblivion. For there is the one and the same Author and Master of all the truths that Christian teaching comprises: the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. That they are adapted to all ages and nations is plainly deduced from the words which Christ addressed to His apostles: Going therefore teach ye all nations: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”
- “…the Apostolic See, to which not only the office of teaching but also the supreme government of the whole Church was committed, has constantly adhered to the some doctrine, in the same sense and in the same mind (7): but it has always been accustomed to so modify the rule of life that, while keeping the divine right inviolate, it has never disregarded the manners and customs of the various nations which it embraces. If required for the salvation of souls, who will doubt that it is ready to do so at the present time? But this is not to be determined by the will of private individuals, who are mostly deceived by the appearance of right, but ought to be left to the judgment of the Church.”
- “But in the matter of which we are now speaking, Beloved Son, the project involves a greater danger and is more hostile to Catholic doctrine and discipline, inasmuch as the followers of these novelties judge that a certain liberty ought to be introduced into the Church, so that, limiting the exercise and vigilance of its powers, each one of the faithful may act more freely in pursuance of his own natural bent and capacity.”
- “For, in the first place, all external guidance is rejected as superfluous, nay even as somewhat of a disadvantage, for those who desire to devote themselves to the acquisition of Christian perfection; for the Holy Ghost, they say, pours greater and richer gifts into the hearts of the faithful now than in times past; and by a certain hidden instinct teaches and moves them with no one as an intermediary. It is indeed not a little rash to wish to determine the degree in which God communicates with men…”
- “…the whole matter is according to the common law by which God in His infinite providence has decreed that men for the most part should be saved by men; hence He has appointed that those whom He calls to a loftier degree of holiness should be led thereto by men, “in order that,” as Chrysostom says, “we should be taught by God through men.”
- “It is hard to understand how those who are imbued with Christian principles can place the natural ahead of the supernatural virtues, and attribute to them greater power and fecundity. Is nature, then, with grace added to it, weaker than when left to its own strength?”
- “For, say they, such vows are altogether out of keeping with the spirit of our age, inasmuch as they narrow the limits of human liberty; are better adapted to weak minds than to strong ones; avail little for Christian perfection and the good of human society, and rather obstruct and interfere with it. But how false these assertions are, is evident from the usage and doctrine of the Church, which has always given the highest approval to religious life.”
- “Lastly, not to delay too long, it is also maintained that the way and the method which Catholics have followed thus far for recalling those who differ from us is to be abandoned and another resorted to. In that matter, it suffices to advert that it is not prudent, Beloved Son, to neglect what antiquity, with its long experience, guided as it is by apostolic teaching, has stamped with its approval.”
- “So that if among the different methods of preaching the word of God, that sometimes seems preferable by which those who dissent from us are spoken to, not in the church but in any private and proper place, not in disputation but in amicable conference, such method is indeed not to be reprehended; provided, however, that those who are devoted to that work by the authority of the bishop be men who have first given proof of science and virtue.”
The United States of America is the product of 18th century liberal Enlightenment philosophy – this is a statement denied by none, or at least very few, and is plainly evident from her governing documents and institutions. Moreover, it is denied by none that, aside from the one Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence (Charles Carroll of Carrollton) and the two Catholic signers of the Constitution (Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons), many of the signers of these documents were masons – thus imbued, to some degree, in the masonic worldview of naturalism; that masons hold to this is no secret and can even be seen to a certain degree in their motto: “making good men better”. For more on the matter of Masonic Order and its teachings, one may confer the plethora of Papal documents on the matter, particularly Humanum Genus, an encyclical of Leo XIII, which has recently been covered in an adult doctrine class, given by Fr. Carlos Zepeda, which was posted on The Catholic Wire.
Even from a brief perusal of Papal documents which were promulgated from around the times of the American and French Revolutions and until the death of Pius XII (e.g. Quanta Cura and The Syllabus of Errors, Mirari Vos, Libertas, Immortale Dei, etc.) one can gather that there is a staunch opposition between liberal ideals (by this is not meant the modern political left but rather what is frequently termed “classical liberalism”, which has in itself different schools – think Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, Smith, Hume, etc.) and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Needless to say, a Catholic cannot hold to the ideas of freedom of religion, unbridled freedom of speech and the press, and other suchlike doctrines – no, not in any way; such is reiterated over and over again by the true Popes before the Second Vatican Council.
This is all to set the scene for this immensely important Apostolic Letter of Leo XIII to Cardinal Gibbons. As America was founded on such principles, and as such principles were consequently widespread among its citizenry, it was only a matter of time until they began to infect laypersons and the clergy, to a greater or lesser degree. This was becoming especially evident towards the end of the 19th century as priests (and, unfortunately, even bishops) were beginning to too closely adopt false American ideals into their mindsets and, even worse, into their ministries. Occasioned by controversy sparked by the publication of a book entitled The Life of Isaac Thomas Hecker into European languages, Leo XIII resolved to put an end to this issue by writing this document, condemning what others had already begun to call “Americanism”.
Unfortunately, this letter itself drew criticism and controversy. Some of the liberal and Americanist camps began to characterize the aged and venerable Leo XIII as a “theological and Pontifical Don Quixote,” as Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D., a respected ecclesiastical historian, put it, charging at the windmill of “Americanism”. That is to say, they claimed that the theories condemned in the letter were not actually held in the American Church, that the pope was ignorant of American affairs and was fighting no enemy at all. They laid blame on the French translators of the above-mentioned work for deceiving the pope. Such a theory is demonstrably false. The following was said by the Most Reverend Archbishop of St. Paul, John Ireland, in the English preface to the book:
This is explicitly, unequivocally, almost word-for-word condemned in the sixth paragraph of Testem Benevolentiae. Thus, it was not the fault of the French translators; rather, there were, in fact, clergymen, even high-ranking ones, who held to some of these opinions. Moreover, if the pope was truly fighting a “boogeyman”, then why would some of the bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Milwaukee, Abp. Elder of Cincinnati and his suffragan bishops, and Abp. Corrigan of New York City and his suffragan bishops write in explicit terms that these condemned opinions were an issue in their jurisdictions? Abp. Elder said in a letter to Leo XIII, “The errors you condemn were calculated to work great harm to souls. Your Apostolic Letter, with its lucid explanation of Catholic truth, will, we feel confident, end all future misunderstanding. Roma locuta est; causa finita est (i.e. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished).” Abp. Corrigan in a letter of March 10, 1899 was yet more forceful and thankful:
As these errors arise from the American mindset – the American ideal of individualism and unbridled personal liberty – it is important that those of us who live in America or areas of the world dominated by related ideologies be aware of the warnings of the Supreme Pontiff in this regard. We must never allow these false concepts to influence our judgment. This is especially true of the American clergy. Patriotism, a true virtue, must never and can never come into contradiction with the law of God and divinely revealed truths.
(Americanism) – 1899
THE APOSTOLIC LETTER TESTEM BENEVOLENTIAE OF HIS HOLINESS, POPE LEO XIII
TO HIS EMINENCE, JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS
THE ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE
CONCERNING SOME OPINIONS WHICH ARE INDICATED BY THE NAME OF AMERICANISM (1)
1. We send you this letter as a testimony of that devoted affection in your regard, which during the long course of Our Pontificate, We have never ceased to profess for you, for your colleagues in the Episcopate, and for the whole American people, willingly availing Ourselves of every occasion to do so, whether it was the happy increase of your church, or the works which you have done so wisely and well in furthering and protecting the interests of Catholicity. The opportunity also often presented itself of regarding with admiration that exceptional disposition of your nation, so eager for what is great, and so ready to pursue whatever might be conducive to social progress and the splendor of the State. But although the object of this letter is not to repeat the praise so often accorded, but rather to point out certain things which are to be avoided and corrected, yet because it is written with that same apostolic charity which We have always shown you, and in which We have often addressed you, We trust that you will regard it likewise as a proof of Our love; and all the more so as it is conceived and intended to put an end to certain contentions which have arisen lately among you, and which disturb the minds, if not of all, at least of many, to the no slight detriment of peace.
2. It is known to you, beloved Son, that the book on The Life of Isaac Thomas Hecker has, especially through the work of those who have undertaken to publish it in a foreign tongue or to comment upon it, excited not a little controversy, by reason of certain opinions advanced concerning the way of leading a Christian life. We, therefore, on account of Our apostolic office, in order to provide for the integrity of the faith, and to guard the security of the faithful, desire to write to you more at length upon the whole matter.
The Faith must not be watered down
3. The principles on which the new opinions We have mentioned are based may be reduced to this: that, in order the more easily to bring over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church ought to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and, relaxing her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern popular theories and methods. Many think that this is to be understood not only with regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held. Now, Beloved Son, few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that is thus conceived, if we but consider the character and origin of the doctrine which the Church hands down to us. On that point the Vatican Council says: “The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed like a theory of philosophy which is to be elaborated by the human understanding, but as a divine deposit delivered to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. …That sense of the sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding,” (2).
Nor may principles of the Faith be omitted or hidden
4. Nor is the suppression to be considered altogether free from blame, which designedly omits certain principles of Catholic doctrine and buries them, as it were, in oblivion. For there is the one and the same Author and Master of all the truths that Christian teaching comprises: the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, (3). That they are adapted to all ages and nations is plainly deduced from the words which Christ addressed to His apostles: Going therefore teach ye all nations: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world, (4). Wherefore the same Vatican Council says: “By the divine and Catholic faith those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God either written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church whether in solemn decision or by the ordinary universal magisterium, to be believed as having been divinely revealed,” (5). Far be it, then, for any one to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it. Let them return; indeed, nothing is nearer to Our heart; let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be by any other road than that which Christ has pointed out.
On altering ecclesiastical discipline
5. The rule of life which is laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature as not to admit modifications, according to the diversity of time and place. The Church, indeed, possesses what her Author has bestowed on her, a kind and merciful disposition; for which reason from the very beginning she willingly showed herself to be what Paul proclaimed in his own regard: I become all things to all men, that I might save all, (6). The history of all past ages is witness that the Apostolic See, to which not only the office of teaching but also the supreme government of the whole Church was committed, has constantly adhered to the some doctrine, in the same sense and in the same mind (7): but it has always been accustomed to so modify the rule of life that, while keeping the divine right inviolate, it has never disregarded the manners and customs of the various nations which it embraces. If required for the salvation of souls, who will doubt that it is ready to do so at the present time? But this is not to be determined by the will of private individuals, who are mostly deceived by the appearance of right, but ought to be left to the judgment of the Church. In this all must acquiesce who wish to avoid the censure of Our predecessor Pius VI, who proclaimed the 18th proposition of the Synod of Pistoia “to be injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God which governs her, inasmuch as it subjects to scrutiny the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church could establish a useless discipline or one which would be too onerous for Christian liberty to bear.”
False liberty must never be introduced into the Church
6. But in the matter of which we are now speaking, Beloved Son, the project involves a greater danger and is more hostile to Catholic doctrine and discipline, inasmuch as the followers of these novelties judge that a certain liberty ought to be introduced into the Church, so that, limiting the exercise and vigilance of its powers, each one of the faithful may act more freely in pursuance of his own natural bent and capacity. They affirm, namely, that this is called for in order to imitate that liberty which, though quite recently introduced, is now the law and the foundation of almost every civil community. On that point We have spoken very much at length in the Letter written to all the bishops about the constitution of States; where We have also shown the difference between the Church, which is of divine right, and all other associations which subsist by the free will of men. It is of importance, therefore, to note particularly an opinion which is adduced as a sort of argument to urge the granting of such liberty to Catholics. For they say, in speaking of the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff, that after the solemn decision formulated in the Vatican Council, there is no more need of solicitude in that regard, and, because of its being now out of dispute, a wider field of thought and action is thrown open to individuals. A preposterous method of arguing, surely. For if anything is suggested by the infallible teaching of the Church, it is certainly that no one should wish to withdraw from it; nay, that all should strive to be thoroughly imbued with and be guided by its spirit, so as to be the more easily preserved from any private error whatsoever. To this we may add that those who argue in that wise quite set aside the wisdom and providence of God; Who when He desired in that very solemn decision to affirm the authority and teaching office of the Apostolic See, desired it especially in order the more efficaciously to guard the minds of Catholics from the ,dangers of the present times. The license which is commonly confounded with liberty; the passion for saying and reviling everything; the habit of thinking and of expressing everything in print, have cast such deep shadows on men’s minds, that there is now greater utility and necessity for this office of teaching than ever before, lest men should be drawn away from conscience and duty. It is far, indeed, from Our intention to repudiate all that the genius of the time begets; nay, rather, whatever the search for truth attains, or the effort after good achieves, will always be welcome by Us, for it increases the patrimony of doctrine and enlarges the limits of public prosperity. But all this, to possess real utility, should thrive without setting aside the authority and wisdom of the Church.
Spiritual direction is not to be rejected
7. We come now in due course to what are adduced as consequences from the opinions which We have touched upon; in which if the intention seem not wrong, as We believe, the things themselves assuredly will not appear by any means free from suspicion. For, in the first place, all external guidance is rejected as superfluous, nay even as somewhat of a disadvantage, for those who desire to devote themselves to the acquisition of Christian perfection; for the Holy Ghost, they say, pours greater and richer gifts into the hearts of the faithful now than in times past; and by a certain hidden instinct teaches and moves them with no one as an intermediary. It is indeed not a little rash to wish to determine the degree in which God communicates with men; for that depends solely on His will; and He himself is the absolutely free giver of His own gifts. The Spirit breatheth where He will, (8). But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ, (9). For who, when going over the history of the apostles, the faith of the rising Church, the struggles and slaughter of the valiant martyrs, and finally most of the ages past so abundantly rich in holy men, will presume to compare the past with the present times and to assert that they received a lesser outpouring of the Holy Ghost? But, aside from that, no one doubts that the Holy Ghost, by His secret incoming into the souls of the just, influences and arouses them by admonition and impulse. If it were otherwise, any external help and guidance would be useless. “If any one positively affirms that he can consent to the saving preaching of the Gospel without the illumination of the Holy Ghost, who imparts sweetness to all to consent to and accept the truth, he is misled by a heretical spirit,” (10). But as we know by experience these promptings and impulses of the Holy Ghost for the most part are not discerned without the help, and, as it were, without the preparation of an external guidance. In this matter Augustine says: “It is he who in good trees co-operates in their fruiting, who both waters and cultivates them by any servant whatever from without, and who by himself gives increase within,” (11). That is to say, the whole matter is according to the common law by which God in His infinite providence has decreed that men for the most part should be saved by men; hence He has appointed that those whom He calls to a loftier degree of holiness should be led thereto by men, “in order that,” as Chrysostom says, “we should be taught by God through men,” (12). We have an illustrious example of this put before us in the very beginning of the Church, for although Saul, who was breathing threatenings and slaughter (13), heard the voice of Christ Himself, and asked from Him, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? He was nevertheless sent to Ananias at Damascus: Arise and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. It must also be kept in mind that those who follow what is more perfect are by the very fact entering upon a way of life which for most men is untried and more exposed to error, and therefore they, more than others, stand in need of a teacher and a guide. This manner of acting has invariably obtained in the Church. All, without exception, who in the course of ages have been remarkable for science and holiness have taught this doctrine. Those who reject it, assuredly do so rashly and at their peril.
Natural virtues are not greater than supernatural virtues
8. For one who examines the matter thoroughly, it is hard to see, if we do away with all external guidance as these innovators propose, what purpose the more abundant influence of the Holy Ghost, which they make so much of, is to serve. In point of fact, it is especially in the cultivation of virtue that the assistance of the Holy Spirit is indispensable; but those who affect these novelties extol beyond measure the natural virtues as more in accordance with the ways and requirements of the present day, and consider it an advantage to be richly endowed with them, because they make a man more ready and more strenuous in action. It is hard to understand how those who are imbued with Christian principles can place the natural ahead of the supernatural virtues, and attribute to them greater power and fecundity. Is nature, then, with grace added to it, weaker than when left to its own strength? And have the eminently holy men whom the Church reveres and pays homage to, shown themselves weak and incompetent in the natural order, because they have excelled in Christian virtue? Even if we admire the sometimes splendid acts of the natural virtues, how rare is the man who really possesses the habit of these natural virtues? Who is there who is not disturbed by passions, sometimes of a violent nature, for the persevering conquest of which, just as for the observance of the whole natural law, man must needs have some divine help? If we scrutinize more closely the particular acts We have above referred to, we shall discover that oftentimes they have more the appearance than the reality of virtue. But let us grant that these are real. If we do not wish to run in vain, if we do not wish to lose sight of the eternal blessedness to which God in His goodness has destined us, of what use are the natural virtues unless the gift and strength of divine grace be added? Aptly does St. Augustine say: “Great power, and a rapid pace, but out of the course,” (14). For as the nature of man, because of our common misfortune, fell into vice and dishonor, yet by the assistance of grace is lifted up and borne onward with new honor and strength; so also the virtues which are exercised not by the unaided powers of nature, but by the help of the same grace, are made productive of a supernatural beatitude and become solid and enduring.
Christian virtues are not “passive”, nor are they to be “adapted” to the times
9. With this opinion about natural virtue, another is intimately connected, according to which all Christian virtues are divided as it were into two classes, passive as they say, and active; and they add the former were better suited for the past times, but the latter are more in keeping with the present. It is plain what is to be thought of such division of the virtues. There is not and cannot be a virtue which is really passive. “Virtue,” says St. Thomas, “denotes a certain perfection of a power; but the object of a power is an act; and an act of virtue is nothing else than the good use of our free will,” (15); the divine grace of course helping, if the act of virtue is supernatural. The one who would have Christian virtues to be adapted, some to one age and others to another, has forgotten the words of the Apostle: Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son (16). The Master and exemplar of all sanctity is Christ, to whose rule all must conform who wish to attain to the thrones of the blessed. Now, then, Christ does not at all change with the progress of the ages, but is yesterday and to-day, and the same forever (17). To the men of all ages, the phrase is to be applied: Learn of Me because I am meek, and humble of heart (18), and at all times Christ shows himself to us as becoming obedient unto death (19), and in every age also the word of the Apostle holds: And they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences (20). Would that more would cultivate those virtues in our days, as did the holy men of bygone times! Those who by humbleness of spirit, by obedience and abstinence, were powerful in word and work, were of the greatest help not only to religion but to the State and society.
The religious life and vows are not to be denigrated or disparaged
10. From this species of contempt of the evangelical virtues, which are wrongly called passive, it naturally follows that the mind is imbued little by little with a feeling of disdain for the religious life. And that this in common to the advocates of these new opinions we gather from certain expressions of theirs about the vows which religious orders pronounce. For, say they, such vows are altogether out of keeping with the spirit of our age, inasmuch as they narrow the limits of human liberty; are better adapted to weak minds than to strong ones; avail little for Christian perfection and the good of human society, and rather obstruct and interfere with it. But how false these assertions are, is evident from the usage and doctrine of the Church, which has always given the highest approval to religious life. And surely not undeservedly. For those who, not content with the common duties of the precepts, enter of their own accord upon the evangelical counsels, in obedience to a divine vocation, present themselves to Christ as His prompt and valiant soldiers. Are we to consider this a mark of weak minds? In the more perfect manner of life is it unprofitable or hurtful? Those who bind themselves by the vows of religion are so far from throwing away their liberty that they enjoy a nobler and fuller one – that, namely, by which Christ has set us free (21).
Religious orders are most beneficial
11. What they add to this – namely, that religious life helps the Church not at all or very little – apart from being injurious to religious orders, will be admitted by no one who has read the history of the Church. Did not your own United States receive from the members of religious orders the beginning of its faith and civilization? For one of them recently, and it redounds to your credit, you have decreed that a statue should be publicly erected. And at this very time, with what alacrity and success are these religious orders doing their work wherever we find them! How many of them hasten to impart to new lands the life of the Gospel and to extend the boundaries of civilization with the greatest earnestness of soul and amid the greatest dangers! From them no less than from the rest of the clergy the Christian people obtain preachers of the Word of God, directors of conscience, instructors of youth, and the entire Church examples of holy lives. Nor is there any distinction of praise between those who lead an active life and those who, attracted by seclusion, give themselves up to prayer and mortification of the body. How gloriously they have merited from human society, and do still merit, they should be aware who are not ignorant of how the continual prayer of a just man (22), especially when joined to affliction of the body, avails to propitiate and conciliate the majesty of God.
Greater esteem is due to religious societies that take vows
12. If there are any, therefore, who prefer to unite together in one society without the obligation of vows, let them do as they desire. That is not a new institution in the Church, nor is it to be disapproved. But let them beware of setting such association above religious orders; nay rather, since mankind is more prone now than heretofore to the enjoyment of pleasure, much greater esteem is to be accorded to those who have left all things and have followed Christ.
Abandon not the ancient ways of propagating the Faith; conferences not condemned
13. Lastly, not to delay too long, it is also maintained that the way and the method which Catholics have followed thus far for recalling those who differ from us is to be abandoned and another resorted to. In that matter, it suffices to advert that it is not prudent, Beloved Son, to neglect what antiquity, with its long experience, guided as it is by apostolic teaching, has stamped with its approval. From the word of God we have it that it is the office of all to labor in helping the salvation of our neighbor in the order and degree in which each one is. The faithful indeed will most usefully fulfill their duty by integrity of life, by the works of Christian charity, by instant and assiduous prayer to God. But the clergy should do so by a wise preaching of the Gospel, by the decorum and splendor of the sacred ceremonies, but especially by expressing in themselves the form of doctrine which the apostles delivered to Titus and Timothy. So that if among the different methods of preaching the word of God, that sometimes seems preferable by which those who dissent from us are spoken to, not in the church but in any private and proper place, not in disputation but in amicable conference, such method is indeed not to be reprehended; provided, however, that those who are devoted to that work by the authority of the bishop be men who have first given proof of science and virtue. For We think that there are very many among you who differ from Catholics rather through ignorance than because of any disposition of the will, who, perchance, if the truth is put before them in a familiar and friendly manner, may more easily be led to the one sheepfold of Christ.
Americanism defined; it must be repudiated and condemned
14. Hence, from all that We have hitherto said, it is clear, Beloved Son, that We cannot approve the opinions which some comprise under the head of Americanism. If, indeed, by that name be designated the characteristic qualities which reflect honor on the people of America, just as other nations have what is special to them; or if it implies the condition of your commonwealths, or the laws and customs which prevail in them, there is surely no reason why We should deem that it ought to be discarded. But if it is to be used not only to signify, but even to commend the above doctrines, there can be no doubt but that our Venerable Brethren the bishops of America would be the first to repudiate and condemn it, as being especially unjust to them and to the entire nation as well. For it raises the suspicion that there are some among you who conceive of and desire a church in America different from that which is in the rest of the world. One in the unity of doctrine as in the unity of government, such is the Catholic Church, and, since God has established its centre and foundation in the Chair of Peter, one which is rightly called Roman, for where Peter is there is the Church (23). Wherefore he who wishes to be called by the name of Catholic ought to employ in truth the words of Jerome to Pope Damasus, “I following none as the first except Christ am associated in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that Rock I know is built the Church; whoever gathereth not with thee scattereth.”
15. What We write, Beloved Son, to you in particular, by reason of Our office, We shall take care to have communicated to the rest of the bishops of the United States, expressing again that love in which we include your whole nation, which as in times past has done much for religion and bids fair with God’s good grace to do still more in the future.
16. To you and all the faithful of America We give most lovingly as an augury of divine assistance Our Apostolical Benediction.
17. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s on the 22nd day of January, in the year 1899, of Our Pontificate the twenty first.
- For anyone who may question the doctrinal force of this letter, it was published in the official Acta; it can be found in ASS, vol. 21 (1898-99), pp. 470-479.
- Const. de Fid. cath. c. iv.
- John 1:18.
- Matt. 28:19, 20.
- Const. de Fid. cath. c. iii.
- I Cor. 9:22.
- Conc. Vatic. c. iv.
- John 3:8.
- Eph. 4:7.
- Conc. Arausic. ii. can. vii.
- De Grat. Christi. c. xix.
- Hom. i. in Inscr. altar.
- Acts 10:9
- In Ps. xxxi. 4.
- I. II. a. I.
- Rom. 8:29.
- Heb. 13:8.
- Matt. 11:29.
- Philip. 2:8.
- Galat. 5:24.
- Galat. 4:31.
- James 5:16.
- S. Ambr. in Ps. xi. 57.