c) "DEDICATED WITHOUT MEASURE AND FREE WITHOUT MEASURE"

"The intolerant factions are the dreadful scourge of the Church"

I fully share your fears regarding the effects of a condemnation of Rosmini.  Though not a Rosminian, I now fear a condemnation with great anxiety.  If it happens, we will have many secret apostates and many public rebels.

Rosmini will truly become an extension of Jansen, and the turmoil visited on the Church by the followers of the latter will be renewed with greater force by the followers of Rosmini.  I am convinced this is entirely the work of a certain faction ‑- and unfortunately some have played into their hands ‑- a faction that is hoodwinking the Pope in this matter that has nothing to do with either faith or morals.  I feel we must oppose these people (...).  The Church is threatened by a great misfortune.  The extremist, intolerant factions are the most dreadful scourge of the Church.  Every day I pray and impose on myself certain penances, begging God to send us another St. Francis De Sales, who will put a stop to this unfortunate philosophical question, just as he did with the fiery question De Auxiliis.

More than two hundred of my priests studied Rosmini.  In anticipation of an eventual condemnation, my concern over the last few years was to win their trust and to prepare them for submission, whenever the Pope should make his decision, while allowing them, in the meantime, the liberty granted by the Church.  With the help of God, I believe I have succeeded.  Moglia, who is the head of the Rosminians, has reassured me many times about himself, as well as about all the others.  But this is not the case everywhere.  Last autumn, when I was visiting in Como, I heard some very discouraging news in this regard, especially about certain dioceses where things were rashly pushed to excess, in line with the thinking of the newspaper that pretends to be the guiding light of all minds.  Enough!  We will talk about this to see what approach to adopt with the Holy Father.  Meanwhile I have written to several Rosminians reproving them for the excessive boldness of recent pamphlets.¹³

"A time to speak and a time to keep silent"

We must not confuse cowardice with prudence.  There is a time to keep silent, and I kept silent for six years.  But there is also a time to speak and I have spoken, as my sense of duty dictated.  Please assure the Holy Father, Monsignor, that the results of this decision were more widespread and salutary than one would have expected, both in my diocese and elsewhere.  The disheartening silence of the whole episcopate ‑- whether intimidated or misled ‑- in the face of the continuous attacks of certain newspapers putting on airs of deep respect for the episcopate itself and especially for Holy See was looked upon by serious and well-meaning people as a sign of extreme weakness and of collusion with the ensuing disorders.  Somebody had to raise his voice; and, by force of circumstance, I happened to be that person.

And here, Monsignor, I want to point something out.  Some people were bent on turning a very simple and private matter into a Rosminian question.  This is the secret of all the ruckus they wanted to stir up.  But there is nothing more false.  I tell you frankly: I don't follow the philosophical system of Rosmini.  If his system were true, I would be loudly proclaiming the opposite.  My few writings and the decisions I took regarding education in my diocese a long time before the appearance of that marvelous encyclical, Aeterni Patris, speak all too eloquently.  I confess, however, that I esteem, respect, and love in the charity of Jesus Christ all people of good will who work with pure intention for the holy cause of God and the Church, whatever their opinions, as long as the Church has left them open for discussion.

I am more than ever convinced that many noble and sincere people ‑- quietly weeping under the accusation of being enemies of that Church for whose defense they would give their last drop of blood ‑- that many beautiful minds ‑- which bring honor to the clergy and to the Catholic laity ‑- would break their pens at once and give an edifying and marvelous example of gracious submission to the Holy Father's final decision but would refuse to submit, and rightly so, to the false authorities who with incredible audacity try to impose themselves on others.

At least regarding the priests of my diocese I don't have the slightest doubt.  But I ask, why do people want to make the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ tyrannical?  Why shouldn't we allow learned people the honorable freedom allowed them by the Church, which has always

been its jealous guardian?

A calm, serious, and dignified discussion that safeguards charity, notwithstanding the clash of different opinions, this is what we should aim at.  Isn't this what the Roman Pontiffs have always recommended, something our glorious Holy Father himself has done in his brilliant Brief to the Archbishop of Malines?  Oh, how I wish he were listened to!

But, unfortunately, we are living in times when brazen and shrewd individuals have learned how to get impunity by yelling at the top of their lungs against writers and people they believe the Supreme Pontiff views with suspicion.  These individuals openly boast of forwarding their insinuations and demands to the Pope through a well-known religious.  This paralyzes the bishops because they cannot make public the reasons for measures taken against certain people who shrewdly cover themselves with the mantle of Thomism, and who, the more insolent and arrogant they are, the more they claim protection (...).

This is why I had intended to publish a little book entitled Revolution in the Church.  The idea is very simple.  Revolution is essentially destructive and has already destroyed everything in the civil order with its wiles, starting with the principle of authority.  If we look closely, we see that the same thing is happening in the Church at the hands of a certain faction, which, resorting to the same wiles, sometimes with even greater cunning, has taken it upon itself to viciously vilify individuals and communities, prelates and bishops, depending on what is more or less suitable for its purpose, namely personal interest.  It hurts me to think that not even the Holy Father was spared when he indicated he had no intention of playing favorites (...).

More and more I admire the provisions the Pope took with regard to the Osservatore of Milan.  I am sure they would have met with everyone's approval to the great benefit of the Holy See.  But who ever heard of them?  Surely none of those who could most profitably learn from them!  This is so true that people still think or are made to believe ‑- I don't know why ‑- that I and others have been dealt the harshest reprimands from Rome, with me practically excommunicated!  With what harm to the episcopal dignity and my sacred ministry, I leave it to your imagination, dear Monsignor.

It was for this precise reason that I candidly asked the Holy Father in his kindness to give me at least a word of encouragement.  He has not deemed it proper to give it to me, at least not so far.  I adore the judgments of God and will go ahead "in good fame and in bad," seeking

to save my soul and the souls of the flock entrusted to me.

I beg you, Monsignor, to let the Holy Father know how I feel, since I don't want to hide anything from him, not even the most intimate secrets of my heart, as behooves children.  In this way, if I make a mistake, he can correct me and I will always accept his corrections with the same joy and gratitude with which I would accept his commendations, because he is my shepherd, my Father, and I am his most devoted son.¹⁴

"Freedom in philosophical matters"

You want to know the truth from me about rumors on what the Holy Father personally is supposed to have told me concerning the question of Rosmini's philosophy.  I am here to satisfy you.  I am guided always and in everything I do, not by what I read in the newspapers, not even Catholic ones, but by him who alone has the authority to regulate in one way or another the discipline of the universal Church.  Therefore, also regarding freedom in matters of philosophy, I wished to pose the question personally to the Supreme Pontiff. "Holy Father," I said, "there are many in my diocese who follow Antonio Rosmini's philosophical system, of whom the most notable is the Provost of St. Anne's, Father A. Moglia.  A student of that system for years, he supports and defends it vigorously also in his published writings.  According to some people ‑- ever quick to play the teachers and pass judgment in your name on everyone and everything ‑- the supporters of Rosmini and his system should be considered nothing more than rebels against your teachings; and, as bishop, I should not only forbid all discussion of the subject but also have recourse to censures..."

"Oh no!" the Holy Father answered in that grave manner of his, so full of kindness. "No, dear Bishop!  Tell your priests that I never intended to take away anyone's freedom to discuss arguable teachings.  Also with regard to Rosmini, his supporters may certainly continue their debates in all good conscience provided, of course, they always observe the rules of moderation and charity which I have often recommended

and are disposed to submit to whatever decision this Holy See may deem proper to issue in this regard."  These are his exact words.  I asked permission to divulge them if and when the occasion arises, and I received permission to do so.  I wrote them down immediately so as not to forget, change, augment, tone down, or otherwise alter them in any way whatsoever.¹⁵

"It is not right to anticipate the judgments of the Church"

While the Roman Pontiff was urging that the teachings of St. Thomas be presented and recommended as the best suited for the defense of the true faith and religion against the rampant pronouncements of unorthodox teachings, he also demanded that the faithful be protected against teachings that, drawn from impure sources, could prevent the attainment of the desired goal, especially when a person, illustrious for integrity of life and brilliance of intellect, was conferring on these teachings a certain authority.  In fact, Antonio Rosmini's renown is great.  But, in some way, he is a prisoner of the defects of his times.

No one should be surprised that a man outstanding for learning and piety could have taught certain doctrines that, in the judgment of the Church, are at variance with the analogy of the faith.  No one should be surprised that many could have followed this doctrine, as long as the Church permitted it.  That people gravitate around an illustrious person is something that happens by the Providence of God and because of human nature.  For this reason a legislator is needed, according to the dictum: "Grant, O Lord, a legislator over them, so that they remember they are human beings."

All teachers are flags around which the lesser folk in need of a flag rally.  Hence, in the Church there is the tradition of allowing anyone to follow without criticism the ideas of modern teachers until the Church makes a pronouncement.

Others with different ideas are likewise permitted to follow the path of their ancestors and to champion, within the limits of moderation, the opposite teaching, to draw conclusions from logical reasoning, and to refute and reject the new teachers.  But no one was ever allowed to call an adversary a perverter of the truth or to defame him.  Indeed, it is not right to anticipate the judgments of the Church.  One must presume

that both those in favor and those against a teaching are acting in good faith and with the right intentions.

But no person of good sense rallies around a particular flag without implicit dependence on the Holy See, the only banner raised by God, to which all the faithful, especially priests, must always and in all things say: "I never went astray by following your teachings."

Now, when the Church speaks and says that a certain doctrine is not safe, her children may no longer follow it but must accept the judgment of the Church without reservation.¹⁶

"I have always left them the freedom of thought permitted by the Church"

Veni, vidi....  I wish I could add the rest!  I asked Professor Stoppani to come and see me.  I tried to attack him on all fronts and with all possible ammunition, but to no avail.  Truly the arguments he set forth were such and so many that I confess I would not know how we could reasonably not take them into account.

Among other things, he told me that, since the periodical "Rosmini" does not belong to him, he has no authority to suspend its publication.  He said that the founders and collaborators of the periodical are mostly believing lay people from all the cities and main universities of Italy, united in the goal of Christianizing science and defending religion from the attacks of modern rationalism.  He thought that even if all the ecclesiastics were to pull out, these people would not necessarily put an end to an effort they believe is, in our day, more than ever useful, necessary, and supremely important.  Stoppani added that, enjoying as he did a certain influence over them, he felt he should accept, as in fact he did, their invitation to work with them, in the interest of tempering their discussions and keeping them within proper limits.  In fact, he succeeded in preventing the publication of a violent article against a Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Concordia.  He stated that, since Leo XIII had more than once declared publicly and privately that, even regarding philosophical questions, he had never intended to prevent dispassionate discussion among intellectuals, the latter cannot believe that now the Pope would be offended by the appearance of a periodical that in fact aims to do just that.  Finally, he

said that in no way can they permit a newspaper ‑- flaunting itself as the faithful mouthpiece of the Holy See ‑- to continue freely to slander them as rebels to the Supreme Head of the Church or as liberals, traitors, and worse.

Others have assured me that, if this dirty game continues, they have every intention of denouncing this naked villainy before the Catholic world and publishing a solemn protest in this regard.

As you see, Your Eminence, things are in such bad shape that it is hard to put a remedy to them.  Let's face it: there were exaggerations on both sides, and now we are beginning to see the consequences.  God protect us from worse things!  Personally, even as a result of my conversation with Stoppani, I have a feeling that, if something is not done, there will be serious problems for the future of the Church.

Not that Stoppani showed himself disrespectful or unpriestly.  On the contrary.  But the fact is that I sensed such a bad mood in him, such unrest, that I am really worried.

As for the Rosminian priests in my diocese, we get along in perfect tranquillity.  They know I do not share their views in philosophical matters, but they also know that I have always left them the freedom of thought permitted by the Church and want it always to be respected.  This is enough for them to bow respectfully to the least of my desires as just happened, for example, in the case of the periodical in question.  They have all promised they would not contribute a syllable to it (...).  In any case, I shall do whatever you, in the name of the Holy Father, will tell me.  I am sure no one wants to push the bishops from the wise, moderate line that has been and always will be one of the finest qualities of the Church.¹⁷

"Maybe we bishops, too, have restricted the liberty of individuals too much"

The period we are going through is much worse than it seems.

Among the priests something unhealthy is brewing, not too well defined as yet.  For the moment only the more daring are coming out into the open with bursts of unbelievable transgressions.  Maybe we bishops, too, have restricted the liberty of individuals excessively.  Our strict, punctilious discipline has by now lost the sense of austere grandeur it once had and, as a result, the prestige it used to have.  Maybe we wanted all of them to be perfect, but the perfect is the

enemy of the good.  We wanted everybody to be perfect but not everybody has the gifts to be perfect.

Though highly valuable, philosophy and Catholic social action served as a cloak for some, as a shield for others, and as a means for self-advancement for many.  These are serious questions about which one could write a book.  I often think of them in governing my diocese.

But, unfortunately, those who should do something about all this have learned nothing, forgotten nothing, and forgiven nothing.  May God spare us.  This is really the time to pray much and be prepared for anything.

As for me, I have resolved to think only of my diocese, of the Missions, and of my friends, who are daily decreasing in number.  I don't care to make new ones.  If I could only sanctify myself, become a saint!  "This is the ideal man."

How lucky you are: you've always been one.  I am trying to be one.  But I'm afraid I'll never catch up to you, noall this matter how fast I run.¹⁸

"I was able to sacrifice my convictions"

For me, reverence and respect for the Holy Father was not bravado or hypocrisy but the basic guide of my activity.

In debatable questions, left to free discussion, I followed rational solutions, those that best served the religious and public good of the people.  My special badge of honor has been to follow the guidelines which the Pope, in his wisdom and with the special assistance promised him by Christ, deems most useful for the good of the Church.  Whenever I understood that some particular opinion of mine did not meet the approval of ecclesiastical authority, I was able to sacrifice my convictions precisely in homage to this authority and in accordance with my principles.¹⁹

"They indeed demanded of me a heroic sacrifice"

And now, Your Eminence, just a word about the war that has been waged against me (...).  In all innocence and for the sheer love of good, we do what we are permitted or encouraged to do.  But then the powers-that-be not only abandon the poor vanguards but even join the enemy in beating them up, in crushing them if it were possible.  And goodbye Jack!  What do you say about this, Your Eminence?  Personally, I wasn't surprised or amazed by the intrigue, the tricks, the slander coming from that well-known faction; nor was I at all saddened by all this because it was to be expected.  But I complained strongly, even to the Holy Father, that those people received a hearing in the very pace where they should instead have met the scorn they deserve.  I wanted to defend myself and so wrote the brief pastoral letter I have enclosed.  I sent it to the Holy Father, who, from the red markings, must have given it to who knows whom and then sent it back to me with the request not to publish it.  He really demanded a heroic sacrifice of me, which, I confess, I accepted solely out of love for God.²⁰

"God only knows what I wouldn't do to draw you closer to your bishop"

You can't imagine how much your situation saddens me.  God only knows what I wouldn't do to draw you closer to your bishop.  I can only give you this advice: go to him and he'll receive you with open arms.  Put yourself into his hands.  The rest will take care of itself later on without any problem.  I believe he wants your good, the good of his diocese ‑- divided and split by the dissension between you and the bishop ‑- and the good of the Church.  Be strong.  At the feet of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament let bygones be bygones.  Prostrate yourself before the tabernacle.  I am convinced that from that source you will draw the light confirming the advice I have just given you.²¹