Permit me, gentlemen, to warn seriously and emphatically about the dangers, which unavoidably arise from mixing clerical interests with those that are merely political. Yesterday, in a circle of close friends, I already stated that I regard the rash adoption of a political principle by the associations as a misfortune. May he who has formed a sharply defined political opinion on the controversial questions of the day defend it with all the honest means at his disposal; only may he not try to use an association formed for entirely different, higher purposes as an instrument for the realization of his political ideals and wishes.
When I referred to the danger that an association might vouch for a political form or structure that soon thereafter would be thwarted by events, and that the reputation, yes, even the existence of the association could be called into question, I was told in reply: Whoever falls under the flag of principle always falls with honor, even if the principle is not now acknowledged by the opponent. That would be appropriate if one were really dealing with the kinds of principles that might express eternal and unchangeable truths. But can this be said of forms of the new German constitution, with respect to which it is proposed that the Pius Associations take sides? Even in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt, the views of the Catholic members were and are divided on this question. The great majority of them voted for a directory [as the executive body of a united German nation-state] and regarded neither Austrian nor Prussian imperial rule as appropriate to Germany's current needs and conditions.
Let us take a look at the position of the clergy in France. There, during the political events that occurred as a result of the most recent revolution, the clergy has – without concealing their conviction and their sympathies – nonetheless behaved with great moderation and reserve. Had they intervened more intensely, e.g. followed the example of a certain bishop and appeared in favor of Cavaignac, the disastrous consequences of such a political activity would immediately have set in, and yet it cannot be denied that the election of the President also affected the Church very closely. This time, thanks to the caution of the great majority and its wisely well-tempered attitude, we have not heard, as during the July Revolution [of 1830], about the expulsion of individual bishops and pastors from their parishes. It was a well-intentioned, but in effect highly damaging, mistake that led the so many priests and missionaries at the time of Louis XVIII and Charles X to link, on almost every occasion, the name of the king with the name of God and to preach devotion to the Bourbons from the pulpit and the altar as if this were a clerical dogma. It is well known how hard this religious policy and political religion was avenged [!] on the clergy after the July Revolution.
print version
return to list
previous document