Temporal Power of the Pope

The papal dominion as constituted by the grant of Pepin comprised the cities of Ravenna, Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Casena, Forli Comma chio and 15 other towns. In 1053 the duchy of Benevento was annexed, and between that period and the end of the 13th century the au thority of the Roman See was acknowledged by many other free towns in Italy. In 1278 the Emperor Rudolf I confirmed the acquisitions made thus far, defined the boundaries of the papal states., and recognized the Pope's exclu sive authority over them by absolving the in habitants from their oath of allegiance to the empire. The papal dominion then included Pe rugia, Bologna, Bertinoro. the duchy of Spoleto, the exarchy of Ravenna and the marche of An cona, but many of the towns were more or less independent. The Romagna was annexed at the end of the 15th century. Under Alexander VI and Julius II were added Faenza, Parma, Placentia and Reggio, and the papal states re ceived their final additions in the 17th century namely, Urbino, Ronciglione and the duchy of Castro. In 1797 the Romagna was seized by Napoleon and incorporated into the Cisalpine Republic. The following year Rome itself was taken by the French and the papal states were erected into the. Roman Republic. Pius VII regained possesston of his states in 1800, but they were soon retaken by the French, and finally (1809) incorporated with France, Rome being reckoned the second city of the empire. After the downfall of Napoleon (1814) Pius VII returned to Rome and was formally rein stated in his office of temporal ruler by the treaty of Vienna, mainly through the friendly support of the non-Catholic powers Russia, Prussia and England. In 1830 a rebellion broke out in Ancona and Bologna, the reason alleged by the insurgents being that the clerical rule in the provinces contrasted too unfavorably with the preceding French administration. This re volt was quelled through the aid of Austria, but another uprising occurred soon after, and the Austrians took occasion thereby to occupy the northern legations, while at the same time the French placed a garrison in Ancona. Oc casional minor disturbances occurred between these events and 1848, when Pius IX, on account of an insurrection, was obliged to flee to Gaeta and Rome was declared a republic. The Pope was again restored to power through thc armed intervention of France, Austria, Spain and Na ples, and the Austrians occupied the northern legations or Romagna on his behalf until 1859, when their army was withdrawn. Soon after the province repudiated its allegiance to the Pope and its annexation to Sardinia was pro claimed. The French still continued to hold Rome in subjection to papal authority and Pius IX, with a view to withstand any further en croachments upon this dominions, raised an army, which was placed under the leadership of the able French general, Lamoriciere. In the meantime Garibaldi and his followers, whose aim was the political unification of the Italian states under the rule of Victor Emmanuel, were conducting a successful campaign in Sicily and Naples. The news of this caused an outbrealc in Urbino and the Marches in favor of Victor Emmanuel. Tthe Sardinian troops came to the aid of the insurgents and after two encounters with the troops under Lamoriciere compelled the latter to surrender with his whole army after a week's siege in Ancona (1860). The revolted provinces of Umbria, Urbino and the Marches, as well as the Isolated provinces of Benevento and Pontecorvo, situated within the kingdom of Naples, were immediately annexed to Sardinia. Finally, on 20 Dec. 1870, the French troops having been withdrawn on ac count of the war with Prussia, Rome was en tered practically without resistance by the troops of Victor Emmanuel, and the last vestige of temporal power disappeared. Victor Em manuel having been proclaimed king .over united Italy, took up his residence in the papal palace of the Quirinal and Pius IX withdrew to a life of seclusion (in the Vatican) consider ing himself as a prisoner unable to leave his retreat without compromising his dignity as head of the Church, or even giving occasion to riots and bloodshed. He never ceased to pro test emphatically against the spoliation of his rights as a temporal ruler and against the pres ence of the king and his court in the papal city. Leo XIII, though departing in many respects from the policy of his predecessor, maintained nevertheless throughout the same uncompromis ing attitude toward the question of the tem poral power, and thc same policy was stead fastly affirmed by his successor, Pius X. Such are, in briefest outline, the main facts pertain ing to the origin and history of this ecclesias tico-civil institution. It is beyond the scope of the present article to appreciate or criticize the motives either of those who labored to maintain it or of those who more or less directly sought its abolition. Still ss per tinent to the purpost. in view would .. specu lation on the probable restoration of the same in the future. It must be granted that, con sidering the present political situation in Europe, the probability of a restorauon of the temporal power, at least in its aticient form, seems rather remote. For all practical intents and purposes the different powers recognize as a fait accompli the incorporation of the papal dominions into the kingdom of Italy; though, on the other hand, it still remains true that this state of affairs has never yet received any for mal, international ratification. Furthermore, the necessity, or even the utility, of such a restoration is a point concerning which there is considerable divergence of opinion even among Roman Catholics. It is a question concerning which no authoritative dogmatic pronouncement has been formulated by the Church; however, the firm and unmistakable attitude of the popes toward it cannot be looked upon by Catholics otherwise than deeply significant. All, even the most ultra-montane, must, of course admit that the possession of a temporal sovereignty is not an essential prerogative of the successor of Saint Peter, since for so many centuries before it was established the Church was able to de velop and fulfil so efficiently her mission in the world. Yet this temporal sovereignty is re

garded by many as the means providentially es tablished to protect the necessary independence of the Pope and the free exercise of his func tions as spiritual head of the Church. Others, while admitting the main principle involved (namely, that the Pope should be free in his spiritual capacity) take a somewhat different view of the case. They remind us that the temporal power was the outcome of peculiar and to a great extent abnormal conditions. It was the best and perhaps the only solution at the time, and for centuries afterward of a vexed problem, partly political, partly reli gious ;• but at the same time it is not proved that had the conditions been otherwise some other regime of papal supremacy just as satisfactory would not have developed. But be that as it may, it is claimed that at least in the present social and political conditions of the Christian world, so different from those of the Middle Ages, the desired independence in spiritual matters can be secured without imposing on the Pope the burden of a temporal as well as a spiritual sovereignty. When, however, it is asked how this can be done, no very clear or satisfactory answer is forthcoming. It is plain from the nature of the case, as well as from past experience — notably the sojourn of the papacy at Avignon — that to have the Pope under the control or protection of any secular Prince is dangerous for the best interests of re ligion. If the head of the Church be not him self an independent sovereign, it is hard to conceive a situation in which he would be free from undue political or national influence, es pecially if he is to be either the subject or guest of some temporal ruler. It is for a similar reason that the tounders of the Ameri can Republic wisely determined that the seat of the central or federal government should be located not in any of the States, but in a sepa rate independent district, exempted from State jurisdiction, thus insuring greater freedom of action to the governing body whose duty it is to legislate impartially in the interests of the en tire nation. These and other reasons are urged by the advocates of the temporal power and when it is not unreasonably objected that dur ing the third of a century that has elapsed since the occupation of Rome by Victor Em manuel the Pope has always enjoyed full free dom in the exercise of his spiritual jurisdiction; that never before has the moral influence of the papacy been so powerful and far-reaching, etc., the answer is made that while all this is true, there is nevertheless no sufficient guaranty that this liberty will continue to be granted in the future; that, moreover, the present situa tion of the papacy is certainly abnormal, and that the increase of moral influence is due in great part to the fact that the popes have main tained a firm attitude, refusing to become the allies of the Italian government. Not a few are of the opinion that in the present political status of the civilized world a system of inter national guaranties would be a much more effectual means of securing for the Pope the permanent free exercise of his spiritual juris diction than could result from a restoration of the temporal power. However that may be, the most thoughtful statesmen allow that the prob lem is complicated and delicate — that no solu tion thus far arrived at or suggested is free from grave practical difficulties. The temporal power of medieval and later times was cer tainly not without grave drawbacks and disad vantages as regards the interests of both rulers and subjects. That it has been the occasion of many evils and abuses, that it has often been a real impediment to the spiritual efficiency of the papacy few impartial students of history will venture to deny; yet it will doubtless be as readily admitted that being given the circum stances of the period the temporal power was a most useful, even necessary, factor in the evo lution of Christianity; and whatever may be thought of its adaptability to future contin gencies it will not be a matter for surprise to find that so many are still convinced of its per manent necessity, at least until something better shall have been devised to meet the exigencies of the case, and shall have demonstrated its superiority by actual experience.

W. F., 'The Papal Monarchy from Saint Gregory the Great to Boniface VIII> (New York 1902) • Brosch, 'Geschichte des Kirchenstaates> (2 vols., Gotha 1882); Bryce, James, 'The Holy Roman Em pire' (new ed., New York 1911) •, Cesare, R. de, in North American Review (Vol. CL)XI, p. 869, 1901); Crispolti (Marquis), Filippo, in International Quarterly (March-June 1904); Malinger, J. J I. von, 'Papstthum and Kir chenstaat' (Munich 1861); Duchesne, L. M. 0., 'Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, A.D. 754-1073' (Chicago 1908) ; Greenwood, A. D., 'The Empire and the Papacy in the Middle Ages' (London 1902) • Gustine, G., 'La loi des (Paris 1901); Gug genberger, A., 'The Papacy and the Empire' (Saint Louis 1911) ; Hassett, M., in Catholic University Bulletin (January 1904); Hergen riither, Joseph, 'Der Kirchenstaat seit der franzosischen Revolution" (Freiburg 1860) ; Ireland, John, in North American Review (Vol. CLXXI, p. 337, 1901); Manning, H. E., 'Tem poral Power of the Pope' (London 1871) ; Pastor, Ludwig, 'History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages' (English trans. by Antrobus and Kerr, 12 vols., London 1906-12) ; Probyn, J. W., 'Italy from 1815 to 1890' (Lon don 1891); Reumont, A. von, 'Geschichte der Stadt Rom) (Berlin 1870) • Stillman, W. J., 'The Union of Italy, 1815-1695' (new ed., New York 1909); Tout, F. T., 'The Empire and the Papacy 913-1273' (new ed., London 1901); Valois, 'La France et le grand schisme d'occi dent' (Paris 1896-1902).