c) THE WAYS TOWARD RECONCILIATION

"The Pope has the right of free communication"

The Church is the kingdom of Jesus Christ, while the Bishop of Rome is its sovereign.  To fulfill his divine mission, the Bishop of Rome must freely rule over everyone and direct everything and thus keep unity of faith and government.  A father is never a stranger to his children wherever they may be or to whatsoever rank they may have been raised; nor is a Shepherd a stranger to his flock or a sovereign to his subjects (...).

Those who are opposed to the Shepherd's communicating with his sheep and lambs, with the faithful and the bishops, are opposed to a divine right.  Their contention is that, before decrees go into effect, the approval of the secular power is needed by the Teacher of all Nations, namely, decrees safeguarding the integrity of faith and morals, of discipline, and of all other Church matters regarding the direction of souls.  This weakens the authority of the Apostolic See, disturbs the faithful and their consciences, subjects a divine right to human power, and nullifies the effectiveness of the Primacy itself.¹⁶

"For the Pope we claim the freedom of a Sovereign"

With reference to the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, we solemnly declare that we specifically accept and support those having to do with his temporal power.  We want the Pope to be strong, morally great, and sovereignly free.  He alone is the judge of the form, scope, and degree of freedom he needs to rule the universal Church.

In the present circumstances, there is no way to ensure his autonomy other than by effective and real sovereignty.  Otherwise, in the exercise of his rights as Primate, the Pope will have to be subject to another authority, as experience has taught us in these last few years.¹⁷

"Let the Government have the courage to face the question"

The Government of Italy should appeal directly to the Holy Father's wisdom and love of country.  I deeply believe the Pope would accept the invitation and find in it the supreme joy of his glorious life.  It is absurd to think the Roman Curia would want to put the Church in a situation in which one day it would have to apologize for not having saved Italy.  Let the Government, therefore, have the courage to face the difficult question, and we will all rejoice.¹⁸

"Reasons of supreme importance, not dogma"

The Holy Father assures us that, for the good of Italy, reasons of supreme importance suggest that Catholics not vote.  Even though we are unable to clearly ascertain these reasons in the Chair of Peter's inspired judgment, I, a bishop, will follow the norm set down by the Head of the Church (...).

We must not confuse things.  This is not a question of dogma.  None of us would accept such a thesis even if called by a different name.  I am free to ponder the wisdom and effectiveness of this decision within myself.  But I peacefully accept the word of the Pope because I understand, as I have understood during all my years as bishop, the absolute need to observe discipline, which is the hinge of the unbreakable unity of the structure of the Church.¹⁹

"Participation of Catholics in political elections"

I beg you, Holy Father, to enlighten me soon with regard to a matter closely related to the good government of my diocese as well as all the dioceses of Italy, namely the participation of Catholics in political elections.  While awaiting the new electoral laws, is it licit for them to participate?  I confess, Holy Father, that I have been asking myself this question for some time.  Having closely examined before God the arguments on both sides of the question, I think the time has come to try something in this regard.  But I must not forget that it is up to you alone to decide. 

The reason why I feel obliged to inform Your Holiness is the fact that in my diocese all the landowners without exception (and there are

very many), as well as the managers of shops and factories, have had all their workers registered as voters.  So I greatly fear that the non expedit of the Holy See, which was not observed very much in the past, will be even less so in the future, with great harm to individual consciences and to the detriment of the very authority of the Church.

So permit me another question: could not the change that just occurred in Italian law regarding political elections serve, in God's plan, to justify ‑- in the face of everybody, Italians and foreigners, good and bad ‑- a change in the Holy See's policy concerning the participation of Catholics in political elections?²⁰

"To help the Catholic candidate win"

Regarding the question of the elections, I was informed that, after much hesitation, they had decided to keep the non expedit.  But this did not deter me from submitting a query to the Sacred Penitentiary: "Should there be ‑- as frequently happens ‑- several candidates in an electoral district, of whom one is a well-known Catholic strongly in favor of the rights of the Church, the others more or less hostile to her, could one approve or at least tolerate the situation in which voters respectful of religious values go to the polls in good conscience to help the Catholic candidate win the election?"

The query, together with a long accompanying letter which I will send you later, was not badly received.  Yesterday I was called and told orally that, in these cases, with due reservations, I should let things ride and later on write to the Cardinal of the Sacred Penitentiary to request permission for the elected Catholic to sit in Parliament.  I believe that, if other bishops were to submit the same query to the Cardinal of the Sacred Penitentiary, they would receive the same response.  This doesn't mean much, but at least it is something.  But I can assure you that our writings on this matter were much appreciated and that the Holy Father was quite pleased with them.²¹

"To sacrifice the divine law to the non expedit?"

Your Holiness, I do not want to weary you by repeating what I have already stated.  You know how I feel even about political elections.  God knows the purity of my intentions.

In the early part of last month, in agreement with several other bishops, I sent you a letter on this matter along with two queries I had already submitted to Cardinal Bilio of holy memory.  In my letter I asked if I could make use of the favorable responses I received on that occasion for the coming elections.  Monsignor Boccali answered as follows in your name:

"As in 1882, you Excellency may this time too make use of the private responses received from the Sacred Penitentiary regarding certain queries submitted by Your Excellency to that same Congregation, etc."

Holy Father, I made use of that response in the particular cases that were brought to my attention.  How could I do otherwise?

In this electoral district of Piacenza the radical party presented as candidates for Parliament certain men who are notoriously opposed to the Pope and the Church.  These are men who during these past years have been exasperating the city and main towns with their speeches, vicious and blasphemous beyond words.  Thinking they had already perverted my people, they presented themselves with one of the most irreligious and subversive programs imaginable.  To no one's surprise, the good people became alarmed.  Were these candidates to be elected and become absolute masters of the field and continue to destroy every principle of authority among our people; were they to alienate the faithful from their shepherds and disseminate all kinds of errors against the faith, what would soon happen to the Church of Piacenza?  This is what the more devout and enlightened priests and lay people were asking themselves, many of whom naturally began to wonder whether it would not be better in our particular case to go to vote precisely in order to keep the aforementioned candidates from winning, especially since we secured public and firm declarations from their opponents that they would respect the rights of Catholics. 

In these circumstances, Holy Father, how could I in conscience remain in peace?  How could the shepherd not be concerned at the sight of the wolf threatening to raid his flock?  Still, I did violence to myself, Holy Father.  With remorse, if I may say so, I gave the divine law second place after the non expedit and kept absolutely silent.  The only thing I did was to make use of Monsignor Boccali's eminently wise response in the particular cases that were brought to me.

Before I left for my pastoral visitation, which (please note, Your Holiness) kept me away from the city, in fact from the Province of Piacenza, from May 7 to June 8 of this year, some outstanding Catholics

came to me privately to ask me if, convinced as they were of the need to vote, they could do so in all good conscience.  With an eye on our local circumstances as well as on the reasons some of the people presented, such as those concerning family and work, I simply said to each one individually and altogether privately that voting was not wrong in itself, that the non expedit, however, was still in force, that I did not advise either for or against voting, that they should follow the dictates of their conscience.

Could I as a shepherd of souls, as a bishop, as a director of consciences, answer in any other way?  Could I say anything less than what I said?²²

"The participation of Italians in the political elections"

I was convinced that the participation of all Italians in well planned and orderly elections would contribute to the legislature a contingent of Catholic deputies which in time would get stronger.  Though numerically inferior, this contingent would nonetheless morally represent the preponderance of decency, honesty, and influence over certain social classes; hence the probability of preventing the presentation or approval of laws inimical to the Church and the hope of abrogating those already in existence or making exceptions to them.

The example of Belgium and of the Center Party in Prussia confirmed this conviction of mine.  There the struggle of the Catholics ended up in victory.  Even though they have made only partial gains so far, we can be sure that the efforts and hopes of the undaunted ranks of the Landtag and of the Reichstag will be crowned with full success.

As a matter of fact, our ideas were also shared by public figures of great integrity, whose only desire was to make available to religion and country the services of the most brilliant minds, the most illustrious scientists, and the most capable administrators found among Catholics.

But when we were given to understand that, for reasons of the highest order, the only elections in which, for the present, it was permissible for Catholics to participate were the municipal ones, we reverently accepted the august verdict and withdrew from the discussion of a hypothesis

considered inexpedient.  We worked constantly and diligently, however, for the municipal elections and tried to have elected to the city councils, at least in large numbers, citizens of unquestioned faith or, at least, those who would surely never attack it.  Our candidates could not always prevent an evil but they often succeeded in mitigating it at least in its consequences.  Certainly the present and future generations ought to be grateful to them for having seen to it that religious instruction was retained in the elementary schools.²³

"To have our rightful representatives in Parliament"

In response to your letter of Nov. 29, I am happy to tell you that what you asked me to do I have already carried out in all the religious institutions over which I preside and have taken pains that the presidents of the other institutions should do likewise.

I must add that, despite all this, I have absolutely no hope we will succeed.  Until such time as we have our rightful representatives in Parliament, we will be beating the air.

All Catholics, of course, must comply with the "supreme reasons" forbidding them to take part in political life.  But there isn't an intelligent man alive who does not deplore from the bottom of his heart the existence of those supreme reasons paralyzing these precious forces that are more vigorous in Italy than elsewhere.  If nothing else, let us do our best to be at peace with our conscience, knowing that we did all we could do.²⁴

"Reasons of expediency and reasons of substance"

Last night I had my farewell audience with our beloved Holy Father (...).  The matter of the elections came up twice.  He gave me his reasons of appropriateness and I gave him my reasons of substance.  I think he was impressed by my contention that the dissension in Bologna will continue to boil until the non expedit is removed.  Frankly, I have the impression the Holy Father isn't quite sure what to do but inclines to the abolition of the non expedit, though not for the immediate future, of course.  I concluded this way: Most Holy Father, I would be so happy if you promise to pay attention not to the reasons of expediency, which change from day to day, but to the substance of the question.  And he answered:

Yes, I promise you.  With these words he embraced me with deep emotion.  I left him with even greater emotion in my heart.²⁵

We prefer dynamic politics to static politics"

Is it compatible with one's duties as a Catholic and a citizen to let everything ‑- religion, morality and country ‑- go to rack and ruin rather than extend a compassionate hand to prevent the loss of souls, the corruption of many youths, the approval of a law contrary to religion?  Are political systems perhaps superior to the rights of religion, or shouldn't the interests of the former defer to the supreme rights of religion?  It is very easy and comfortable to settle into a passive policy of inertia and await the cataclysm which, by some unknown law of history, will drag the world back to prehistoric times.  Such a system will probably have to wait till the day of the earthly cataclysm, to be followed by the great restoration or regeneration.  Personally, I prefer dynamic politics to static politics.  If we ever manage to make modern society Christian in the best sense of the word and to avert the great evils that threaten humanity, I am convinced we shall have deserved well of Church and country.²⁶

"Slowly but surely"

What about reconciliation?  It seems to be moving ahead very, very slowly but inexorably, like fate itself.  And then?  He who was wrong will prove to be right.  Fiat, fiat.²⁷

Ideas move ahead at such a desperately slow pace, especially when they run counter to certain interests and passions, but the pace is relentless when the ideas put forward are right and truly beneficial.  So, we must press on because every progress, however minimal, brings us closer to our goal, as long as fatigue does not defeat the supporters of those ideas.²⁸

My Institute, born in such a marvelous way through the harmonious blending of religious and patriotic sentiments, would fall short of its purpose and be unable to overcome the innumerable obstacles in its path or meet its many moral and material needs without the concerted help of all people of good will.  This is the reason, my good friend, why I call this cherished Institution to your attention and, through you, to the attention of the Government and of all those who are concerned with the good of the country.  I do so not only because I see in my Institute a fruitful means for fulfilling my episcopal duties on behalf of so many unfortunate people but also because in this work religion and country join hands.  This, in my judgment, is a beginning, a practical way to start that reconciliation of hearts and minds which is one of my fondest desires.²⁹