1 HE PATRIOT’S MANUAL >EALING WITH THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WORLD THEORIES OF GOVERNMENT A Compendium of Facts, Historical Data, ReasonsandPresent-DayChronicles,Show- ing Why Every Friend of Fundamental Democracy Must Oppose Politico-Ecclesi- astical Romanism in I ts Un - American Campaign to Make America “Dominantly Catholic” Compiled from Authoritative Sources by a Staff of Competent Writers, Under the Personal Direction and Editorial Supervision of B. O. FLOWER President of the Free Press Defense League Founder of “The Arena”; author of “The Century of Sir Thomas Moore,” “Civilization’s Inferno,” “The New Time,” “How England Averted a Rev- olution of Force,” “Progressive Men, Women and Movements of the Past Twenty-five Years,” Etc., Etc., Etc. Published by Authority of THE FREE PRESS DEFENSE LEAGUE FORT SCOTT, KANSAS COPYRIGHTED BY B. O. FLOWER DECEMBER, 1915 /HE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page ' l. xi-xii i PART I. ighty World Theories of Government 1 Ieadly Conflict ' 1 )emocratic Theory in a Nut Shell. . . 1 om of Conscience, Speech, Press and embly 2 he Constitutional Guarantees 3 ' efferson’s Definitions and Axioms of Free Society 3 Washington’s Warning. 4 fincoln’s Strong Endorsement of Jeffer- son’s Position on Freedom 5 Wendell Phillips on the Democratic Ideal of Freedom. . 6 Chancellor Kent on Freedom of the Press . 6 |rce of Church and State 7 IrLAR Secular Education 9 Public Schools the Melting-Pot of Democ- racy 9 President Grant States the Democratic Position on Popular Education. 10 Theory of the Roman Catholic Hier- iCHY 12 The Highest Catholic Authority on Free- dom of Conscience, Speech and Press. . Pius IX versus The Democratic Theory.. 15 Leo XIII versus American Democratic Ideas . 17 The Position of Pius X 18 : Parochial Schools 20 The Real Reason for Their Establishment. 22 j THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 31 31 32 PART II. The Last Three Popes Authoritatively Statu* the Present-Day Opposition of the Catho- / lic Church to Democracy and the g Great Bulwarks of Free In- stitutions. Pai Ex Cathedra Utterances of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. From the Syllabus of Pius IX 25 Comments on this Pope’s Position 27 Leo XIIFS Opposition to Fundamental Democratic Progressive and Liberal Ideas. 28 Stands in the Place of God on Earth. . . . Opposition to Freedom of Speech and Press Union of Church and State Insisted Upon and Freedom of Worship Condemned. . The Right of the Church to Control the Voter in His Political Activities 33 Condemnation of Democracy. 34 The Divine Right of Kings and Autocratic Authority Upheld 37 Denunciation of Free Masonry 37 Pius X’s Hostility to Free Democracy. . ... 41 Condemnation of Popular Sovereignty and Advocacy of Class Rule 42 Shows that the Theory of Our Govern- ment is in Opposition to Catholic Doc- trine 43 Intolerance of the Spirit of Democracy and Brotherhood 45 Opposition to the Modern Spirit of Prog- ress. . 46 This Pope on the Protestant Reformation. 48 Pius X’s Laws Against Modernism 49 PART III. In the Historic Background . 51 Why it is Necessary to Recall the Past. . 51 The Popes of Rome 55 Traditionary Period 55 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. v Page The Second Period 57 The Third Period 59 The Fourth Period 60 The Fifth Period 66 The Sixth Period 70 Some Popes of the Renaissance 73 The Seventh Period 76 The Eighth Period 78 Sources of the Principle of Autocracy of the Roman Catholic Church 79 The Double Doctrine of the Church of Rome 80 The Spanish Inquisition 85 Authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. ... 85 Authoritative English Historian on the Spanish Inquisition 85 From the Catholic Encyclopedia 87 A Distinguished Protestant Scholar on Catholic Justification of the Inquisition. 90 A Former Professor of Moral Theology in the Paulist House of Studies on the Inquisition 91 Who the Author Is 91 Some Instruments of Torture Used by the Inquisition 94 The Jesuits 95 The Index 97 Some Historical Facts About the Index Expurgatorius 98 The Gunpowder Plot of 1605.. 100 Some Typical Victims of Roman Catholic Theory and System 101 Some Examples of Wholesale Destruction of Human Life 103 The Albigenses. . 103 The Waldenses 104 The Lollards 105 The Massacre of St. Bartholomew 106 Some Great Historic Characters Who Were Objects of Rome's Hate 107 John Wycliffe 107 John Huss 107 vi THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Page Savonarola 108 Martin Luther. . 109 Hugh Latimer Ill Giordano Bruno Ill Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School. 112 The Vatican 113 The Vatican Council. . 114 The Dogma of Infallibility 114 PART IV. The Supreme Crisis That Confronts Democ- racy 115 The Campaign to Make America Domi- nantly Catholic 115 A Proper Aim, if the Means Employed Are Legitimate 110 What do the Facts Reveal? 117 Intolerance and Lawlessness and War on Freedom of Speech Characterizes This Campaign 117 Some Distinguishing Features of the Un- American Campaign to Substitute the Papal for the Democratic Theory 118 No Good Cause Fears Reason and Free Discussion 119 Attempts at Censorship of the News, Edi- torial and Advertising Columns of the Secular Press 120 Some Typical Illustrations 120 Epithets of Abuse and Sweeping Denuncia- tions and Intolerance in Lieu of Reason and Argument 123 An Example of Journalistic Abuse and Scurrility 124 A Reckless and Treasonable Utterance. . . .125 An Example of Intolerance in St. Louis, Missouri 127 A Prominent Roman Catholic Politician Would Suppress the Guardians of Lib- erty 129 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. vii Page The Attempt to Prevent the Convention of the American Federation of Patriotic Societies 130 Lawless Invasion of Freedom of Speech. . . .132 A Record of Anarchy, Mobocracy and Murder 132 Murderous Assault on Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley 133 Why Rome Fears and Dreads Him 134 Who is Jeremiah J. Crowley? 134 Mobocracy Triumphant in New Lexington, Ohio 135 Lawless Attempt to Prevent a Prominent Christian Clergyman from Speaking on Martin Luther 136 A Typical Example of Catholic Intoler- ance and Anarchy 136 Lawless Attempt to Prevent Lecture on Public Schools 137 A Criminal Assault on a Popular Chris- tian Evangelist 138 A Minister Kidnapped by a Catholic Mob. 138 The Kidnapping and Murderous Assault on Rev. O. L. Spurgeon 139 Mob Violence in Jackson, Michigan 139 A Distinguished Clergyman a Victim of Rome’s Intolerance 140 The Murder of Rev. William Black by Knights of Columbus 140 Two Ideals of Government in Contrast. . . .141 Roman Catholic Priests, Press and Speak- ers Freely Attack Their Opponents 142 Abuse of Obscenity Laws 144 The Prosecution of Rev. N. L. A. East- man. 145 Catholics Expose the Obscene Utterances of Their Great Theological Authority in Order to Prosecute Protestants .... 146 The Prosecution of Anna Lowry for Read- ing from the Writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori 147 Case of Hon. Thomas E. Watson 149 viii THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Page Who is Thomas E. Watson 149 Second Trial of Mr. Watson 151 The Determined War on the Constitutional Guarantee of Liberty of Religious Dis- cussion 153 The Effort of Politico-Ecclesiastical Romanism to Establish a Bureaucratic Censorship of the Press 157 The Fitzgerald and Gallivan Bills 159 The Catholic Press and Its Attack on the Wholesome Freedom of the Press 161 A Congressional Hearing of Historic Im- portance 163 The Hon. David E. Finley Opposes the Proposed Legislation. 163 Catholics’ Admission That the Bills Were to Interfere With the Freedom of Re- ligious Discussion 166 Masterly Arraignment of Fitzgerald and Gallivaim Bills by Leading Protestants. .168 Rev. R. H. McKim States the Position of the Friends of Democracy 168 Rev. G. F. Williams Shows That Anglo- Saxon Law is Ample to Protect Against Abuses 171 The Case of Cardinal Newman Cited. . . .171 Catholics Circulate Through the Mails Literature That the Courts Hold to be Obscene 173 Rev. W. Russell Collins on the Greater Papal Sovereignty 174 Why the Roman Catholic Church is a Menace to Free Democracy 176 The Editor of The Protestant Magazine Exposes the Vicious Character of the Bills . 176 Freedom of the Press Has Stood the Test of Reason and Time 178 Rev. C. A. Vincent Shows How the Bills Would Turn the Wheels of Progress Back 180 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. ix PART V. Page Some Further Facts for Patriots. Statistical Data of Importance 182 More Than Seventy Million More Non- Catholics Than Catholics 182 Over 11,500,000 More Communicants of Non-Catholic Than Catholic Fellow- ships. . 182 Catholic Bodies in America 184 Statistics of the Great Creeds of the World 185 Untaxed Church Property in the United States. 186 Untaxed Church Property in Greater New York City 186 James A. Garfield’s Advocacy of Taxation of Church Property 187 President Grant on the Taxation of Church Property 187 The Roman Catholic Church and the Mar- riage Question 188 Pius X’s Marriage Legislation— Ne Temere 190 Facts About Mexico. 190 When Catholicism Was Dominant 190 It Was Catholics Who Overthrew Politico- Ecclesiastical Romanism in Mexico... 191 Mexico After the Overthrow of Clerical- ism 192 * A Prominent Mexican Statesman on the Situation 192 Relics, Medals and Badges 195 General Information of Interest to Pa- triots. 199 Black Pope 199 Cardinals 199 Celibacy 199 College of Cardinals 200 Roman Curia 200 Encyclical. 201 Ex Cathedra 201 X THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Page Heresy 201 Holy See 201 Papacy .202 Papal States 202 Peterspence 202 Poman Congregations 202 The Cardinal’s Oath 203 .American or Know-Nothing Party 205 The American Protective Association. .. .206 The Popes versus Knights of Columbus 206 Pius IX on the Position of the Church.. 207 Leo XIII on the Teachings of the Church. 209 The Knights of Columbus... 212 American Federation of Catholic Societies. 213 How the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is Rep- resented in the United States ,..214 The Roman Catholic Press of the United States and Insular Possessions 215 Houses of Good Shepherd and Juvenile De- linquents 215 Inspection of Convents 219 Inspection Bill Passed in Arkansas Legis- lature 220 Text of Bill 220 Patriotic Societies 220 Guardians of Liberty 224 The Knights of Luther 225 Junior Order of American Mechanics. . . .226 American Federation of Patriotic Socie- ties 226 The American Minute Men . 227 Free Press Defense League 227 The Menace 229 Its Phenomenal Growth and Nation-Wide Influence. Some Leading Patriotic Platform Speakers.232 Patriotic Periodicals 232 Index 233-244 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. xi PREFACE. OUR POSITION. This book deals with the issue that has be- come paramount since the religio-political up- holders of Roman Catholic theories have, through various organizations, and individually, sought to abridge the freedom of speech, press and as- sembly, while resorting to such un-American methods as the boycott and mob rule, to injure those who dare to criticise the politico-religious assumptions of the Roman heirarchy. It recognizes the fact that since the rise of a great secret religious organization in the Ro- man Church and the systematic activity of its members and those of other Catholic organiza- tions in our political life, in business affairs and in the press, it is no longer possible to secure in the daily or secular papers any full or free dis- cussion of the vital issues here involved; while all who hold to the ideals of Jefferson relative to the importance of jealously guarding free- dom of speech and assembly, and who insist with the fathers that the State must resolutely refuse to grant any public appropriations for sectarian institutions are viciously assailed as enemies of Roman Catholicism, though they merely insist that neither the Romanist, the Methodist, the Baptist, or any other religious denomination shall be shown any favors or privi- leges by the State. The gravity of the situation, in so far as fun- damental democracy is concerned, is so great as to call for instant consideration on the part of every thinking friend of free institutions. This is all the more apparent since during recent years a number of shameful outrages have been perpetrated against public speakers xii THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. who have ventured to criticise clericalism or the political assumptions of the Roman Church. Many attempts have also been made to utilize the Comstock laws in a most amazing and al- most incredible manner, in order to prevent free discussion of religious matters. Not satisfied with these laws, the clericals or politico-religionists are now striving to secure legislation that would further abridge the free- dom of the press. These are facts that cannot be denied. It is not strange, therefore, in the presence of such a condition, that some who have been shamefully attacked, and others who are acquainted with the religious history of the past two hundred years, have at times imitated the clericals or religio- political Romanists in indulging in epithets and making sweeping charges. This is doubly deplorable, for epithets lead no- where, and overstatement of a case weakens it, placing a weapon in the hands of the opposition and tending to blind many to the vital facts in- volved—the real deadly peril to the fundamen- tals of free government that confronts America today. In this Manual we shall strive at all times to be strictly fair and just, to state only facts, and to understate rather than overstate the case for free government; but, on the other hand, we shall be absolutely fearless in dealing with the facts of today and the facts of history that have a direct and necessarily vital bearing on this, the gravest issue of the hour in the Re- public. Boston, Mass. B. O. FLOWER. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. PART I. TWO MIGHTY WORLD THEORIES OF GOV- ERNMENT IN DEADLY CONFLICT. Here are some fundamental facts: Two mighty world theories of government are battling for control of this Republic. They are direct opposites, as unlike as day and night, or as freedom and slavery. Both cannot succeed. Every American must take his stand for one side or the other. The issue is clear-cut. On the one hand is the fundamental theory of free government voiced in the Declaration of Independence, in our Fed- eral Constitution, in the Bills of Rights of the various commonwealths, and luminously set forth by Thomas Jefferson and other great founders of our democratic State, as well as am- plified in the theory and practices of the pro- gressive statesmen and educators who inaugu- rated the noblest system of public education the world has ever known. The opposing theory is the time-honored claim of the Roman hierarchy in relation to govern- ment, popular education, and freedom of con- science, speech, press and assembly—a theory often termed clericalism, especially in Europe and Latin America, while with us it has aptly been characterized as politico-ecclesiastical Ro- manism, and will presently be considered both in its historic, traditional and present attitude and assumptions. The Democratic Theory in a Nut-Shell. The democratic theory of government holds to certain definite propositions as essential at once to the preservation of free institutions, the peace of society and the development and happiness of the individual. The fathers were fearless innovators who startled the thrones, aristocracies and hierachies of the world by their bold declaration that the authority of government was derived from the citizens, who were the sovereign power in the State. Knowing that the ideal of democracy would be assailed by every form of despotism, and that the triple bulwark of oppression had ever been popular ignorance, religious intolerance and the prohibition of liberty of speech and press, they determined to so safeguard democracy as to ren- der possible the preservation of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. To this end they demanded: (1) Freedom of thought, speech, press and assembly. (2) Absolute divorce of Church and State. (3) Popular education or free schools in which no sectarian, creedal or dogmatic the- ology should be taught. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly. The builders of the democratic State realized that free institutions could never long withstand the attacks of privilege and despotism in their ever-changing forms, unless the people were left free to utter their convictions, unless the press was ungagged, and the citizens were permitted freely to assemble and express their fears, griev- ances, hopes and aspirations. They believed that all forms of despotism and oppression, religious intolerance, bigotry and dangerous reaction could be safely left to plot and plan, so long as the government recognized no creed or faith, on the one hand, and while, on the other, every man and every press was THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 3 left free to raise the cry of alarm and to point out evils as they arose. But the fathers were not content to express their faith in freedom in words. They deter- mined to make it a part of the organic law of the nation. The Constitutional Guarantees. Hence the Constitution thus expressly declares that: “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Govern- ment for a redress of grievances.” Later, in resolutions drafted by Jefferson in reference to the Alien and Sedition Laws, the author of the Declaration of Independence, after quoting the above Constitutional provision, pointed out that the framers of the Constitu- tion thus guarded “in the same sentence and un- der the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech and of press, insomuch as whatever vio- lates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the other.” Jefferson’s Definitions and Axioms of Free Society Jefferson also luminously stated the demo- cratic theory in regard to the vital importance of guaranteeing freedom not only as a precious in- dividual right and the surest protector of democ- racy, but as the only way by which true prog- ress, science and pure religion could be fostered and conserved. Thus on one occasion he de- clared that: “Reason and free inquiry are the only effec- tual agents against error. * * * They are 4 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. the natural enemies of error and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been in- troduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. * * * It is error alone that needs the sup- port of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. * * * Difference of opinion is ad- vantageous in religion. The several sects per- form the office of a censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the in- troduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tor- tured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not ad- vanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To support rogu- ery and error all over the earth. * * * Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free in- quiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it our- selves.”* Jefferson resolutely opposed every attempt to gag, muzzle or restrict freedom of the press, holding that the people “may safely be trusted to hear everything, true and false, and to form a correct judgment from them.”§ Washington, like Jefferson and other master statesmen, fully realized that it was through liberty alone that democracy could be main- tained, and that . only through eternal vigilance in guarding against reactionary foreign and un- democratic ideals, could free institutions be pre- served. Thus, in his farewell address, after ob- serving that, “interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your heart, no recom- *See “Notes on Virginia.” §From Letter to Judge John Tyler, written in 1804. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 5 mendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment/’ he thus appeals to pat- riotic Americans : “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influ- ence I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be con- stantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government/’ Jefferson’s ideal of freedom was admirably set forth in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, written in January, 1799, which has been briefly sum- marized in these words: “Freedom of religion; perfect equality of sects before the law; freedom of the press; free criti- cism of government by everybody, whether just or unjust.”* Lincoln’s Strong Endorsement of Jefferson’s Position on Freedom. The author of the Declaration of Independ- ence not only clearly voiced the democratic ideals as they relate to freedom of press and religion, but his writings were an inspiration and lode- star for the greatest of his presidential suc- cessors. Thus we find Lincoln, in a letter writ- ten in answer to an invitation to address the Republicans of Boston on Jefferson’s birthday in 1859, thus endorsing the ideals of the fathers: “It is now no child’s play to save the prin- ciples of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society, and yet they are denied and evaded with no small show of success.” *See James Parton’s Life of Thomas Jefferson, page 564 . A 6 THE) PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Wendell Phillips States the Democratic Ideal of Freedom. Of the great apostles of the larger freedom no man of the second half of the nineteenth cen- tury was a more consistent or scholarly cham- pion than Wendell Phillips, one of the finest thinkers in the history of the Republic, who freely gave his splendid life to the service of oppressed manhood and imperilled freedom. From Milton, Locke and Mill, down to Jeffer- son, and from Jefferson to our day, no thinker has uttered a more vital word in behalf of free- dom than did this apostle of progressive democ- racy in this concrete statement of the funda- mental freedom that must underlie a truly demo- cratic state: “No matter whose the lips that speak, they must be free and ungagged. Let us believe that the whole of truth can never do harm to the whole of virtue; and remember that in order to get the whole of truth, you must allow every man, right or wrong, freely to utter his con- science, and protect him in so doing. Entire un- shackled freedom for every man’s life, no mat- ter what his doctrine; the safety of free discus- sion, no matter how wide its range. The com- munity which does not protect its humblest and most hated member in the free utterance of his oninions, no matter how false or hateful, is only a gang of slaves.” Chancellor Kent on Freedom of the Press. And finally we have the noble utterance of one of the foremost authorities on American law, on the freedom of the press. Chancellor James Kent, in his “Commentaries on American Law,” says: “It has, accordingly, become a constitutional proposition in this country, that every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his senti- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 7 ments, on all subjects, being’ responsible for the abuse of that right, and that no law can right- fully be passed to restrain or abridge the free- dom of speech, or of the press.”* DIVORCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. At the time when the patriotic guns at Lex- ington and Concord signalled the dawn of mod- em democracy, almost all the nations, states and colonies of the world were blighted by a union of Church and State, and as a result persecu- tion born of intolerant dogmatic theology and unreasoning bigotry cursed the world. The history of Christian Europe for hundreds of years constituted one of the most cruel, dark and bloody pages in the annals of mankind. Whatever dogmatic creed or faith became dominant, persecution of dissenters followed. The fires of the Inquisition, the horrors of the torture chamber and the ruthless execution of untold thousands of the noblest, purest and most sincere men and women of Europe, because they could not subscribe to the creeds of the domi- nant church in the land of their birth, had given Christian Europe an evil eminence among the murderous historic powers of the past. And the* founders of our Republic, seeing that whenever and wherever Church and State were united, persecution, oppression and injustice fol- lowed, determined that in the new democratic nation there should be not only absolute divorce of Church and State, but that this land should be a refuge and asylum for the oppressed, down- trodden and persecuted of other lands, whether victims of Church or State. Here every man “Commentaries on American Law,” by James Kent. New York, 1848, Vol. II, 6th edition, page 17. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. should be free to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. They therefore wisely provided for the abso- lute divorce of Church and State, holding that in a land whose ideal was equality of oppor- tunity for all and special privilege for none, the State must show no favors or partiality to any church, creed or sect. This broad and wise exhibition of enlightened statesmanship has been second only to the guar- antees of freedom of speech, press and assembly in beneficent influence on the Republic, and, less directly, upon the world. It is, as we shall see, not only in direct oppo- sition to the historical and traditional position of the Roman Catholic Church, but is contrary to the positive position of the modern Popes who have spoken on the subject since 1870, when the Vatican Council pronounced as a “divinely re- vealed” dogma Papal infallibility whenever the Pope speaks ex cathedra . Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X all stood resolutely for union of Church and State, where the Catholics were dominant, as we shall show. As the *Church has consistently opposed liberty of worship, speech, press and assembly, so she has held, and does hold to union of Church and State, in direct op- position to the American demand for complete divorce between secular and religious authority. That the hierarchy in Rome heartily approves of the position of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X in regard to union of Church and State is clearly indicated by the fact that on one side of the catafalque of Pius X is placed this tribute: “Defender of Religion. He repudiated the law of separation of Church and State.” *In this work to avoid tautology or too frequent use of the same terms we sometimes use the terms Church or Catholic Church where the meaning is obvious. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 9 POPULAR SECULAR EDUCATION. At the time the American nation was born, little attention was given to the general educa- tion of the masses throughout the Old World. Heresy-hunting had been keen for centuries. The Church had arrogated all kinds of authority. The State had as a rule been pitifully subserv- ient to the Church, especially when it came to placing the ban on freedom of thought and re- search. But the schooling of the poor, the edu- cation of the masses, had been woefully neg- lected. Democracy proposed to remedy all this. The government of the people demanded an elector- ate that could read, write and reason intelligent- ly on the issues of the hour. Hence public edu- cation or free schools was a legitimate and nec- essary function of a free State. It was held, and rightly held, that in a gov- ernment pledged to divorce of Church and State, and where religion was represented by scores of widely differing creeds and dogmas, public edu- cation must be secular or free from all taint of creedal theology, though the Republic did not forbid sectarian schools where any sect wished to supplement the influence of church and home with creedal instruction. Such schools, however, were regarded as un- fortunate by many, because they tended to fan to flame the narrow sectarian spirit and to keep alive the religious bigotry that had been a source of discord and a menace to the most sacred rights of the individual. The Public Schools the Melting Pot of Democracy. There was another reason why public educa- tion in a democracy should be secular or free A 10 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. from all dogmatic taint. The fathers realized that if the United States was to become the melting-pot of civilization, in which Jew, Gen- tile, Anglo-Saxon, Teuton, Latin, Slav and indeed, all races and faiths were to meet and blend, it was of paramount importance to discourage the narrow tribal or sectarian spirit that for cen- turies had divided races, tongues and creeds by a wall of hate, fed by blind prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. They designed the public schools to be a com- mon meeting ground for the children of all races, tongues and creeds, where they would grow together in amity; and these schools, be- sides dispelling illiteracy, have in this respect also splendidly vindicated the wisdom of their founders. They, more than anything else, have made our marvelous polyglot people practically a unit. President Grant States the Democratic Position on Popular Education. President Ulysses S. Grant beheld with grave apprehension the subtle and sinister attempt, even during his presidency, of the foes of free institutions to undermine and destroy this 'bul- wark of democracy. He also clearly understood that with various warring sects teaching their church dogmas and creeds—dogmas that often boldly conflicted with the democratic theories of freedom of the individual in religion, freedom of speech and press, and divorce of Church and State—the peace and concord that had marked the Republic during its first century would come to an end and the old fires of religious and creedal intolerance would flame forth, accom- panied by lawlessness and probably by attempts to abridge freedom of speech and press. Hence, in his last annual message he urged a Constitu- tional Amendment to protect and safeguard the public school system from the enemies of democ- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 11 racy and our free institutions. In the follow- ing extracts from this message, the great hero of the Civil War thus states the democratic po- sition on popular education, and also restates, as a vital principle of our free government, the absolute separation of Church and State: “I suggest for your earnest consideration, and most earnestly recommend it, that a Constitu- tional Amendment be submitted to the legisla- tures of the several states for ratification, mak- ing it the duty of each of the several states to establish and forever maintain free public schools adequate to the education of all the chil- dren in the rudimentary branches within their respective limits, irrespective of sex, color, birthplace or religions; forbidding the teaching in said schools of religious, atheistic or pagan tenets; and prohibiting the granting of any school funds or school taxes, or any part thereof, either by legislative, municipal or other authority, for the benefit or in aid, directly or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination, or in aid or for the benefit of any other object of any na- ture or kind whatever. * * * “As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the honor of transmitting to Congress before my successor is chosen, I will repeat and recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which may be legis- lated upon or settled at this session: First, that the states shall be required to afford the op- portunity of a good common school education to every child within their limits. Second, no sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the state, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon the community * * *. Third, declare Church and State forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres.” 12 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The public schools have been and are the greatest bulwark of free democracy. They must be and they shall be protected from the assaults of the enemies of free institutions. THE THEORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY. The theory of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, though diametrically opposed to that broad and progress-fostering freedom on which our demo- cratic Republic rests, and though in deadly enmity to liberty of conscience, speech and press, is consistent and logical from the viewpoint of those who accept the theological dogmas of the Papacy. Therefore, at the outset, in the interests of fairness and because it will enable us better to understand the irrepressible struggle between the theories of the free democracy of the United States and the fundamental position of the Roman hierarchy, let us notice the ground of the Papacy’s opposition to freedom of conscience, speech and press. The Roman Catholic Church resolutely main- tains that it is the authorized custodian of the infallible Truth of God on earth. “As the voice or authorized representative of divine truth, her word is paramount and must be binding on all who acknowledge her claims. “As God’s representative and the custodian of divine truth, the Church is infallible, and since she embodies truth, and truth is intolerant of error, anything that questions her position, abro- gation or claims, or is in opposition to her theories, must be combatted.”* See Part II, The utterances of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. THE PATRIOT'S MANUAL. 13 Heresy, for example, imperils the immortal souls of men; hence heresy is to be combatted. In the days when Rome was supreme in the gov- ernments of many nations, she held it to be the duty of the Church to weed out and destroy heretics wherever found. Heresy was held to be a most dangerous contagion, far worse than plagues, that merely destroyed men’s bodies, for it robbed men of immortal bliss; hence it should be stamped out, and because of the enormity of the evil, the most extreme measures to destroy it were justifiable. In furtherance of this theory of infallibility of the Roman Church, which is today, as in the past, a fundamental claim of the hierarchy, the Papacy today, as it has throughout the ages, forbids Catholics to read books that criticise the Church, that advocate the larger freedom, or that contain scientific, theoretical, philosophical or other matter not in accord with the accepted theories of the Church. This denial of the right of freedom of thought, as seen in the placing of important books on the Index, is a striking illustration of the fundamental difference between the Protestant and democratic ideal of freedom and the jealously, upheld claim of Rome. The latter necessarily retards free investigation and trains men and nations to un- questioning subserviency to the opinions of men who, while claiming to represent infallible truth, are very fallible in their judgment, as has been demonstrated time and again when they have con- demned great scientific truths, such as the Co- pernican theory, which later have been accepted by the entire civilized world. The Papal Index has had a paralyzing effect on society and liberal thought throughout the world in all Catholic lands, from the day of the burning of Bruno and the imprisonment of Galileo. It has fettered God- given reason and blighted the free, truth-seeking soul of modern civilization in so far as its auto- cratic power extended. Yet it was, and is, the 14 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. logical outcome of the assumption of the infalli- bility of the Church. Claiming to be the infallible receptacle of divine truth, we can understand, though we re- ject and deplore, the position of the Roman hier- archy. It is logical and consistent. , Rut is this logical and consistent attitude still maintained by the Church of Rome? In Protest- ant and free lands, where clericals are striving to advance the political and material power of the Church, we often find Jesuit casuistry employed to convey the idea that the Papacy is no longer hostile to freedom of thought, speech and press; that the Church no longer holds to the dogma of temporal power or advocates the union of Church and State and other doctrines that are abhorrent to free and fundamental democracy. Therefore, we must search in the utterances of modern Popes to see if the hierarchy has changed its position in regard to these vital issues; and though we will constantly find ourselves in a be- wildering verbal maze, with no end of general platitudes and pleasing aphorisms strewing the pathway, we will find from time to time the clear-cut statements which show that beneath the velvet glove of pleasing phrasing is the mailed hand of Papal autocracy, while the attitude of the Church toward freedom of thought, press and worship in Catholic lands, together with the ac- tion of Catholics in our own Republic in recent years, in cases where the Church has been criti- cised or when the religio-political plans of the clerical element have been unmasked, will serve to further emphasize the official position of the Church as indicated in the citations which we shall make. Freedom of Conscience, Speech, Press and Assembly. We have seen how, under the intellectual hos- pitality of our democratic Constitution and the THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 15 exercise of that full-orbed freedom of the fathers which constitutes the axioms and definitions of free society, America has become the greatest republic known to history—the asylum for the oppressed and the victims of the religious and political intolerance of various lands, races and tongues. Now, can we find in the Papacy any authorita- tive evidence of this same full-orbed liberty of speech and press, this same equality of freedom for all religious faiths that has contributed so largely to the happiness, the progress and the peace of America? Can we, indeed, find any renunciation on the part of the Church, the Coun- cil or the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra , or otherwise, of the historic position of the Church in these respects; any regret expressed for the intolerance of the days of the Inquisition; any frank upholding of freedom of speech, press and assembly, such as our Constitution demands; any specific repudiation of the doctrine of the union of Church and State; any denial of the right of the Papacy to direct the voter or the citizen as to how he may act; any intimation that Protestants in Catholic countries should be granted freedom of worship such as Protestant America grants to Catholics—in a word, any de- nial of the historic and logical position of the Church on all these questions? Beginning with Pius IX and coming down to the present time, while we will find many verbal phrasings that on the surface appear as conces- sions, the fact is made equally clear that the fun- damental theory of Rome today is the same as in the eighteenth century. Pius IX Versus the Democratic Theory. In the Syllabus of Pius IX, published in 1864, we have the condemnation of Rome pronounced through her supreme Pontiff, on what were termed the “principal errors of our time.” Among 16 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. the propositions denounced as false is the follow- ing: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” In thus condemning the right of a man to wor- ship God according to the dictates of his con- science the Pope denies and condemns the funda- mental claim of Protestant and liberal democracy, which blossoms out in the guarantee of freedom of religion in the Constitution of the United States. Again, we find this Pope denying the claim that the Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion; that the Church has not the power of using force. He also con- demns the allegation that she has no temporal power, direct or indirect. By condemning these propositions as false, the authoritative head of the Church necessarily maintains the contrary statements to be true ; that is, he holds, as a doctrine of the Church, that it has the power to dogmatically declare the Catholic Church to be the only true religion; while, in the second case, the right of the Church to use force and to hold temporal power is clearly implied. Again, the Pope condemns the theory that the entire government of the public schools should be a State function, free from ecclesiastical authority, control and interference. Here, it will be noted, he places the Roman Church in direct opposition to the public school theory of our democracy. Again, we have the condemnation of the claim that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church. This is tantamount to a declaration by the head of the Church that there should be a union of Church and State—another position that is diametrically opposed to our democratic theory of government. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 17 Not only, according to this Pope, should Church and State be united, but it is an error to claim that it is no longer expedient to hold the Catholic religion as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. Here we have the official maintenance of the theory of the union of Church and State, and the position held that the' Catholic religion is the only religion of the State to be recognized. While in order to make it perfectly clear that the Holy See was thoroughly out of sympathy with progressive democracy and liberalism, the Pope closes his Syllabus with a condemnation of the claim that the Roman Pontiff “can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Leo XIII Versus American Democratic Ideals* Pope Leo XIII, who succeeded Pius IX, was by many regarded as the most liberal Pope of modern times. He was a master in turning phrases and in word wizardry. Still, he was un- willing to renounce the undemocratic, arrogant and time-honored assumption of the Papacy on points that democratic and liberal thinkers insist are vital to free institutions, to individual rights and scientific progress. Thus he takes direct issue with our Constitution and the utterances of the fathers of democracy in regard to freedom when he says: “It is quite unlawful to demand, to defend or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, or of worship.” He holds that to exclude the Church from the power of making laws is a grave and fatal error. “The liberty of thinking and publishing what- soever one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself,” he insists, “an advantage over which *For full discussion of Leo’s Letters and extended quotations, see Part II. 18 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountainhead and origin of many evils.” He quotes with approval Pope Gregory XVFs reactionary utterances against freedom of speech, and mourns that the Church in these times is often compelled to acquiesce in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in them- selves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them. The right of the Church to supervise the action of the voter, even to the extent of forbidding him to exercise the right of franchise, is maintained; while highly significant is the declaration that: “It would be very erroneous to draw the con- clusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dis- severed and divorced. * * * She would bring forth more abundant fruits, if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.” Here we have the Pope taking direct issue with the position of Thomas Jefferson, which Abraham Lincoln declared constituted the “defi- nitions and axioms of free society,” and with the Constitution of the United States in its guaran- tee of freedom of the press, speech, assembly and worship. And again, in the assertion of the right of the Church to supervise and control the action of voters and the criticism of our provisions for the divorce of Church and State, we have the Pope in direct antagonism with the great fundamental democratic principles and theories of our govern- ment. The Position of Pius X. Pius X clearly showed his hostility to the demo- cratic ideals of freedom and intellectual hospital- ity on many occasions, as, for example, in his THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 19 encyclical, “Notre charge apostolique” of August 3, 1910, suppressing the Catholic society “le Sil- lon,” an organization established in France by zealous and earnest Catholics for the purpose of promoting social reform and fraternal democracy. In speaking of the suppression of this society through the above encyclical, Rev. William L. Sullivan, the scholarly author of “Letters to His Holiness Pius X, by a Modernist,”* says: “This organization, established in France by a zealous layman, had for its purposes social re- form, the spread of fraternal democracy, and the amicable uniting of all men of good will for the discussion of economic problems, and the duties of conscientious citizenship with regard to them. The Pope condemns it for the following reasons: It cultivated too great and too independent an initiative among the laity; it brought together Catholics and non-Catholics in too friendly an intercourse; it sought to break down the barriers of class distinction; and it dreamed of a future society nobler and kinder than we have now, be- cause based on brotherhood and philanthropy. “In condemnation of all this the Pope declares that even in works of social helpfulness Roman Catholics must be subservient to the guidance of their bishops; that it is wrong for Roman Cath- olics to mingle with non-Catholics in free dis- cussion; and that there can be no worthy civili- zation not wholly controlled by the Church (‘on n’ edifiera pas la societe si V eglise n’en jette les bases et ne dirige les travaux 9 ) in one word the encyclical pleads for a theocracy which demands automatism from the laity, the supremacy of clericalism, and a deepening of those divisions *Rev. William L. Sullivan, after receiving- the degree of Licentiate of Theology from the Catholic University at Washington, was professor of Moral Theology for six years at the Paulist House of Studies, affiliated with the Catholic University. Later, because of his modernist views and the intolerance of Pius X in regard to the same, he left the Roman Catholic fellowship. r THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL.20 among men which have been created by the spirit of privilege and the spirit of sect.”* Pope Pius X also gave a startling exhibition of the hostility of the present-day Papacy to all toleration shown to Protestants in Catholic lands, when he so bitterly fulminated against the Span- I ish law granting Protestants and other dissent- I ing religious denominations the small right of posting notices of their services and of displaying outward signs indicating that their meeting places were edifices of public worship. But it is needless to multiply quotations illus- trating the fact that the position of the Holy See is today, as in the past, what it logically must be so long as it holds that the Church is the infallible custodian of Divine Truth, and that truth is intolerant of error. The point that all friends of free democracy should clearly realize is that we are here in the presence of two mutually exclusive theories of life and government battling for supremacy; and while Catholics should be fully protected in the exercise of their religion, they must be firmly, bravely and determinedly opposed when they seek to interfere with the fundamental democratic theory as it relates to freedom of speech, press and assembly, to the maintenance of the absolute divorce of Church and State and the refusal to recognize the right of any church to receive sec- tarian aid from the State, and when they attack or seek to undermine our popular secular educa- tional system which has become so magnificent a distinguishing feature of the greatest free democracy the world has ever known. The Parochial Schools. The Roman Catholic Church has succeeded in recent years in securing a very large proportion *For a full discussion of Pius X’s Law suppressing “le Sillon,” see Part II, Pius X Hostility to Democracy. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 21 of the teaching positions in the public schools in our great American cities for ardent Roman Cath- olics. This has not, however, hindered the Church from waging an aggressive war on our public schools and pushing forward its system of re- ligious or parochial schooling, which is a part of the hierarchy’s plan to substitute the Papal for our free democratic system. Of the parochial schools, their origin and sig- nificance, Father Jeremiah J. Crowley gives the following interesting facts: “The parochial school in America owes its be- ginning, according to Bishop Spalding of Peoria, Illinois, to the German Catholics. In his lecture entitled, ‘The Catholic Church in the United States,’ delivered at the Church of Notre Dame, Chicago, January 24, 1904, before a representa- tive audience, he said: “ ‘Fifty years ago there was a great difference of opinion amongst Catholics in this country about the religious school. Some of the leading Bish- ops, some of the most active minds, had mis- givings—were rather in favor of simply accepting the school as it existed, and of not attempting to create a distinctively religious school. We owe, I think, this great movement, or at least the begin- ning of this great movement, largely to the Ger- man Catholics. “ ‘It was among the German Catholics first that insistence upon the necessity of a religious school was made, and not made wholly from re- ligious motives. The Germans, as you know, are of all people in this country the most tenacious of their mother-tongue. They are a tenacious race, strong, sturdy, persevering, without frivol- ity, not easily influenced by new surroundings, loving their own customs, as well as their own tongue. “ ‘Now, from a desire to perpetuate their lan- guage, as well as from a desire to instill into the minds and hearts of their children the faith which they had brought across the ocean with them, 22 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. | they began to establish schools, and they showed ; us how easy it is—how easily a congregation of 1 one hundred families in this country, in villages, can build and maintain a Catholic school. “ ‘And then, attention being attracted to it, it more and more grew upon the consciences of the Catholic Bishops, and priests and people, that this was the one thing that God called us to do, more than anything else, if we would make our faith abiding here in this new world, and in this demo- cratic society.’ ” The Real Reason for Its Establishment. “From the words of Bishop Spalding it will be seen that the Catholic parochial school in America is many years younger than the American public school. The Bishop attributes the adoption and the. carrying out of the German Catholics’ par- ochial school idea to the recognition by Catholic bishops, priests and people of a call from God. The fact is that Catholic bishops and priests were the ones who seized upon the parochial school idea. The Catholic people did not want the par- ochial school. Why did the priests and prelates adopt it and why do they champion it today? The answer is four-fold. First: Because they saw, and see, that there never can be any union of Church and State in this Republic as long as its citizens are the product of public schools. Second: They saw, and see, that the indoctri- nation of Catholic children with liberal and pro- gressive ideas is impossible in schools wholly under Catholic clerical influence. Third: They saw, and see, that the parochial school gives ample opportunity to train Catholic children to close their eyes, ears and mouths to clerical drunkenness, grafting and immorality. Fourth: THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 23 They saw, and see, in the parochial school an immense opportunity for graft. “The Catholic parochial school in the United States is not founded on loyalty to the Republic, and the ecclesiastics who control it would throttle, if they could, the liberties of the American peo- ple. “Catholic public school opponents declare that at least one-third of the American people favor their position. I deny it. I am morally certain that not five per cent of the Catholic men of America endorse at heart the parochial school. They may send their children to the parochial schools to keep peace in the family and to avoid an open rupture with the parish rector; they may be induced to pass resolutions of approval of the parochial school in their lodges and conventions; but if it ever becomes a matter of blood, not one per cent of them will be found outside of the ranks of the defenders of the American public school. “If a perfectly free ballot could be cast by the Catholic men of America for the perpetuity or suppression of the parochial school it would be suppressed by an astounding majority. * b “The plain Catholic laymen know that the pub- lic school is vastly superior to the parochial school in its methods, equipment and pedagogic talent. They know, too, that the public school is the poor man’s school. They know that the public school prepares, as no other can, their children for the keen struggle of American life and the stern duties of American citizenship. “Prelates and priests work upon the fears and feelings of the women and children, and the fathers, to have peace in their families, yield and send their children to the parochial school.” 24 THE P A*T RIOT’S MANUAL. Already attempts have been made to secure division of school funds for parochial schools. In Newport, Rhode Island, for example, a stren- uous attempt was made some time since, and was finally defeated only by the combined effort of the friends of our free democratic system of government;* but this and other attempts show what is in the minds of those who are seeking to replace the democratic by the papal theory of government. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 25 PART II. The Last Three Popes Authoritatively State the Present-Day Opposition of the Catholic Church to Democ- racy and the Great Bulwarks of Free Institutions. FROM THE SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. The famous Syllabus of Pius IX, published in 1864, contained eighty propositions which this Pope condemned as errors. The following are some of the modern theories denounced in this Syllabus:* “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. “18. Protestantism is nothing more than an- other form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. “21. The Church has not the power of defin- ing dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. “23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have erred in defining matters of faith and morals. *These quotations are taken verbatim from “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” published under the Imprimatur of John, Cardinal Parley, Archbishop of New York. New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. 26 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. “25. Besides the power inherent in the episco- pate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority, granted either ex- plicitly or tacitly, which on that account is re- vocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. “27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. “31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. “42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers the civil law prevails. “45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth of a Christian state is edu- cated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to apper- tain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recog- nized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. “47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers and according to the standard of the prevalent opin- ions of the age. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 27 “55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. “57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. “77. In the present day it is no longer ex- pedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. “78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. “80. The Roman pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with prog- ress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Pius IX. This Syllabus also characterizes Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, and Clerico-Liberal Societies as pests to be reprobated in the severest terms. Comments on This Pope’s Position. By condemning each , of the above propositions as false the Pope necessarily maintains the con- trary to represent the truth and the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is to say, he main- tains : That man is not free to follow the dictates of his conscience or to profess that religion which his reason leads him to believe to be true. That the Church has the right dogmatically to define the Catholic Church as the only true re- ligion. That the Church has the power to use force and has temporal power. That in case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law is not to take prece- dence. He is directly opposed to our popular secular educational theory, which is denounced as false. 28 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. He also maintains that the Church and State should be united; that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and that Protestants going to Catholic countries should not be permitted freely to exercise their own pe- culiar worship. LEO XIIPS OPPOSITION TO FUNDAMEN- TAL DEMOCRATIC PROGRESSIVE AND LIBERAL IDEALS. In the year 1870 the Vatican Council, the last of the great general councils of the Church, flew in the face of the advancing liberalism and ex- panding religious theories of civilization by giv- ing the claim of the infallibility of the Pope the binding authority of a “divinely revealed” dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. The de- cree was passed during the Pontificate of Pius IX, who was succeeded by Leo XIII. This latter Pope was supposed to be a cardi- nal of great liberality. He was intellectually one of the most brilliant men who have occu- pied the Papal chair. His long Pontificate, cov- ering most of the closing years of the nine- teenth century, occurred in a time of stress and strain for the hierarchy. The principles of liberal democracy enunciated in our Declaration of Independence and our liberal Constitution had been vigorously assailed by all the great re- actionary and autocratic influences in society. The speedy failure of the experiment in popular sovereignty had been confidently predicted; but contrary to all these prophecies, the Republic had become the greatest moral force and one of the most marvelous examples of governmental success known to history. Its foundation prin- ciples of popular sovereignty, or the people as the source of government, freedom of speech, divorce of Church and State, and popular secu- THE] PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 29 lar education, were all, as we have seen, in di- rect opposition to the firmly held principles of the Papacy. Its intellectual hospitality and religious tol- eration had taken firm hold upon the imagina- tion of western civilization. The growing in- telligence of the masses in all lands where popu- lar secular education prevailed, contrasted most strikingly with the illiteracy of countries where the Church had for centuries controlled educa- tion, and consequently was becoming increas- ingly popular, especially as it was seen to make for concord and religious toleration wherever introduced. As the Protestant Reformation had made for intellectual emancipation, democracy had aimed at political emancipation; and now came a third demand—a demand for justice instead of charity for all the people; a demand that intellectual and political emancipation should be accom- panied by economic emancipation. In England, Canon Kingsley and Frederic D. Maurice inaugurated Christian Socialism. In Continental Europe, and indeed throughout all civilized lands, the principles of scientific So- cialism were being vigorously advanced. From Russia, Tolstoi was influencing the intellectual world by his noble Christian idealism and ad- vancing the doctrine of non-resistance, so dia- metrically opposed to the theory of the Roman Church; while in America, Henry George had luminously expounded his economic gospel in “Progress and Poverty.” Moreover, France, so long called the elder daughter of the Church, had rebelled, thrown off the Papal yoke, declared for separation of Church and State, and expelled many of the rich and powerful orders, which that republic held were a menace to free institutions and popular secular education. The times thus seemed sadly out of joint to Leo. He was too intellectually astute to imagine 30 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. that a bold, direct reiteration of the jealously maintained traditions of the Papacy would be generally accepted throughout the liberal world, and he was too wise to endanger the interests of the Church in liberal America and elsewhere by bold, bald and undraped statements of the po- sition of the Church in regard to all the great fundamental ideals cherished by liberal and democratic society. On the other hand, he was not willing to sur- render one iota of the historic claims of the Papacy. Leo’s liberalism was seeming rather than real. He held firmly to the reactionary Ro- man Catholic dogmas and planted them through- out his various encyclicals, so that the faithful should not run any risk of being deluded; but he carefully surrounded them with a verbal flora born of a rich and tropical imagination and well calculated to divert the attention of Protestant readers from the real significance of his utter- ances. The Protestant, for example, when he speaks of the Christian church means some or all of the various fellowships which acknowledge Christ as the head of the church. But not so the Popes of Rome. To them all sects are heretics, and Leo, no less than Pius IX and Pius X, was out- spoken in his position on heresy. Thus we find that wrhile Pope Innocent III speaks of the “filth of heresy,” Leo XIII, in his encyclical on “The Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens,” refers to “the CRIME of heresy.”* When speaking of Christian society, of relig- ion, Christian authority, or the authority of the Church, he, in common with all the popes, means the Roman Catholic Church. And when it is *See page 194, “The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII,” New York, Benziger Bros., 1993. Under the Imprimatur of John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. All the quotations from the encyclicals of Leo XIII in this article are taken from this volume, and hereafter merely the pages will be noted. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 31 remembered that the ex cathedra utterances of the Pope, according to the “divinely revealed” dogma of the Church, are “irreformable,” the declarations, as found in the following quota- tions from his various encyclicals, afford a striking and startling illustration of the mutually exclusive character of the vital and fundamental principles of our free democracy and those of the present-day Papacy. Stands in the Place of God on Earth. In referring to his authority this Pope says: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (p. 304.) Opposition to Freedom of Speech and Press. “It is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.” (p. 161.) No more direct or positive denial of the funda- mental principle of our government guaran- teeing freedom of speech, or of the theories enunciated by Jefferson and the fathers, can be found than this statement of the greatest of the latter-day Popes. “We must now briefly consider liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty.” (p. 151.) When it is remembered that the Church has always claimed the right to suppress—where she has the power—criticism, and to prevent her communicants from exercising their reason or even reading criticisms of the authority or teach- 32 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. ings of the Church, the full significance of the above statement will be appreciated. Again he says : “If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate. ,, (p. 152.) The placing on the Index of the teachings of Copernicus, Galileo and other master scientific thinkers and torch-bearers of truth and prog- ress throughout the ages, because the Papacy opposed this “unbridled license of speech and of writing,” would, had it succeeded in exercising its authority over the thought of the world, have held civilization in the bondage of ignorance. “Wherefore, this liberty also, in order that it may deserve the name, must be kept within cer- tain limits, lest the office of teaching be turned with impunity into an instrument of corrup- tion.” (p. 153.) Here is a clear declaration of the right of censorship over teaching. “So, too, the liberty of thinking and of pub- lishing whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the con- trary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils.” (p. 123.) Union of Church and State Insisted Upon and Freedom of Worship Condemned. “To exclude the Church * * * from the power of making laws * * * is a grave and fatal error. * * * To wish the Church to be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duty is a great folly and a sheer injustice. * * * The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals.” (p. 124.) The Church of Christ here referred to is the Roman Catholic Church, the only church which THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 33 the Papacy recognizes. Heresy, as we have seen, is, in the eyes of this Pope and the Church, a crime. The Right of the Church to Control and Direct the Voter. “Where the Church does not forbid taking part in public affairs, it is fit and proper to give sup- port to men of acknowledged worth, and who pledge themselves to deserve well in the Catho- lic cause.” (p. 198.) “It would be very erroneous to draw the con- clusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dis- severed and divorced.” (p. 323.) “She [the church] would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she en- joyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.” (p. 324.) Here it will be noted that the Pope does claim the right, speaking ex cathedra , and consequent- ly as an infallible and binding declaration upon all true Roman Catholics, to interfere with the voter, even to the extent of forbidding him to take part in the government of his country, as well as to direct him as to how he should vote; while, in the second place, it will be observed that he condemns our system of divorce of Church and State, thus declaring, with Pius IX, for the union of Church and State. This is the ideal of the Papacy; it is the ideal of the hier- archy in all lands and at all times, and it is necessarily part of the dream of the Roman Catholics in the United States who are working to make America “dominantly Catholic.” While it was extremely important not to alienate the Republic or check the campaign to make America “dominantly Catholic,” Leo XIIPs 34 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. intense opposition to the Declaration of Inde- pendence, to popular sovereignty, and to the great fundamental principles that differentiate a free republic from the Papal hierarchy, was so pronounced that he could not refrain from ex- pressing his unyielding hostility to the ideals of our free democracy. Hence we find his opposi- tion to the ideals of the Declaration of Inde- pendence thus set forth in his Encyclical on “The Christian Constitution of States,” pub- lished November 1, 1885: Condemnation of Democracy. “Sad it is to call to mind how the harmful and lamentable rage for innovation which rose to a climax in the sixteenth century, threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society.” (p. 120.) “Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and na- ture, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims, all gov- ernment is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose nevertheless some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, how- ever, in their name.” (p. 120.) “Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the populace is declared to THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 35 contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all powers, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the con- trary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.” (p. 121.) Here we have one of the most luminous state- ments, at once lucid and concise, of our demo- cratic theory of government; not quoted, how- ever, with approval, but for the purpose of con- demnation. And here, it will be noted, among the fea- tures especially singled out as “lamentable in- novations,” are: The right of the individual “to think on every subject just as he may choose”; the claim that the will of the people should be the governing power of the State; the peo- ple as the source of sovereignty, instead of an autocratic church or an autocratic temporal ruler; officials being the representatives of the people instead of their masters; religious tolera- tion; the divorce of Church and State; and the refusal on the part of the State to recognize any one church to the exclusion of others, or to grant any special religious favors to any creed. In setting forth thus brilliantly the ideals of democracy, and in opposing them as contrary to the position of the Church, Leo XIII here com- pletely states the case for the friends of free institutions; and speaking as the infallible head of the Church, whose utterances are “irreform- able,” he completely refutes the contrary claims as urged by American Roman Catholics, who necessarily speak without authority when their 36 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. utterances positively conflict with the teaching’s of the Pope. Again, the Pope emphasizes the fact that the theory of government held by the Roman hier- archy is in direct opposition to that of democracy when he says : “The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to re- side in the multitude; which is doubtless a doc- trine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and inflame many passions, but which lacks all rea- sonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching things have come to such a pass that many hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturb- ance is ever hanging over our heads.” (p. 123.) This doctrine, however comforting and pleas- ing to the kaiser and the czar, is not borne out by the facts of history. Compare the wonder- ful peace, prosperity and advancement of the United States, whose government embodies all these things condemned by the Pope, with condi- tions in any land under absolute or autocratic rule, whether it be the Papal States before the people revolted and threw off the yoke of the temporal power, or Russia under the czar and bureaucracy. Again, in his indictment against the theory of government which he was then condemning in France, but which is equally applicable to the United States so far as education and temporal power are concerned, the Pope says: “The drawing up of laws, the administration of State affairs, the godless education of youth, * * * the overthrow of the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff, all alike aim at this one THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 37 end—to paralyze the action of Christian insti- tutions, to cramp to the utmost the freedom of the Catholic Church, and to curtail her every single prerogative.” (p. 122.) The Divine Right of Kings and Autocratic Authority Upheld. “From the heads of State to whom, as the Apostle admonishes, all owe submission, and on whom the rights of authority are bestowed by God Himself, these sectaries withhold obedience and preach up the perfect equality of all men in regard to rights alike and duties.” (p. 23.) What comforting doctrine this would have been to George III when he was fighting our patriotic fathers, who denied the divine right of kings! Again : “Hence by a fresh act of impiety, unknown even to very pagans, governments have been or- ganized without God and the order established by Him being taken at all into account. It has even been contended that public authority, with its dignity and its power of ruling, originates not from God but from the mass of the people, which, considering itself unfettered by all di- vine sanction, refuses to submit to any laws that it has not itself passed of its own free will.” (p. 24.) What the Pope means by God in relation to government is clearly taught in the following: “Civilization which conflicts with the doctrines and laws of Holy Church is nothing but a worth- less imitation and a meaningless name.” (p. 12.) Denunciation of Freemasonry. In common with the popes in general, Leo XIII launched his thunderbolts against Free- masonry, devoting the encyclical of April 20, 1884, to a bitter attack upon this great, world- 38 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. wide and beneficent order. In this encyclical the Pope maintains that: “This Apostolic See denounced the sect as contrary to law and right, to be pernicious no less to Christendom than to the State; and it forbade any one to enter the society, under the penalties which the Church is wont to inflict upon exceptionally guilty persons.” (p. 85.) “The sect of Freemasons grew with a rapidity beyond conception in the course of a century and a half, until it came to be able, by means of fraud or audacity, to gain such entrance into every rank of the State as to seem to be almost its ruling power. This swift and formidable ad- vance has brought upon the Church, upon the power of princes, upon the public well-being, precisely that grievous harm which our prede- cessors had long before foreseen. Such a con- dition has been reached that henceforth there will be grave reason to fear, not indeed for the Church—for her foundation is much too firm to be overturned by the effort of men—but for those States in which prevails the power, either of the sect of which we are speaking, or of other sects not dissimilar which lend themselves to it as disciples and subordinates. “For these reasons We no sooner came to the helm of the Church than We clearly saw and felt it to be Our duty to use Our authority to the very utmost against so vast an evil.” (p. 86.) “It is now Our intention, following the ex- ample of Our predecessors, directly to treat of the Masonic society itself, of its whole teach- ing, of its aims, and of its manner of thinking and acting, in order to bring more and more into the light its power for evil, and to do what We can to arrest the contagion of this fatal plague.” (p. 87.) “ ‘A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree produce good fruit/ Now, the Masonic sect produces fruits that are pernicious and of the bitterest savor. For, from what We have THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 39 above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view—namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideals, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere ‘Naturalism.’ ” (p. 89.) “For since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.” (p. 95.) The above extracts are sufficient to show to what extent blind prejudice will lead even the infallible head of the Roman Church, when at- tempting to discredit a great organization that consistently stands for the larger freedom, the nobler justice, and the broader humanity of mod- ern democracy and advancing humanistic liberal civilization. Rome instinctively hates Freemasonry as she instinctively hates democracy, because Freema- sonry upholds the principles of democracy, and the principles of democracy and those of Roman Catholicism are mutually exclusive. In this con- nection it may be in place to make a brief ex- tract from the allocution of James D. Richard- son, Sovereign Commander of the Supreme Coun- cil of the 33rd Degree Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Masons, delivered under date of October, 1913, as it not only admirably states the reason for Catholic opposition to Freema- sonry, but luminously shows by contrast the broad, fine spirit of Masonry, which shines out against the intolerant and untrue assertions of the Pope as a beacon-light against an inky sky: 40 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “It is well now to call the attention of Ameri- cans and patriots to the dangers which environ them and threaten the permanency of our in- stitutions. “Freemasonry is attacked because it every- where resists their political aggressiveness and because it denies the right of the Romish Church, its Popes and priests, to compel men to profess a belief in what they may declare to be re- ligious truths; because it resists all their efforts at a union of Church and State, antagonizes their efforts for the abolishment and destruc- tion of our common schools in our States and municipalities, and their edicts declaring void all marriages by civil magistrates, etc. For these things grave charges are brought against the Order, Masonry has no apology to make to any Pope or priest or king or prince for its existence or works. It will make no attack, no matter how great the provocation, upon any church or body of religionists as such, but it will defend itself when attacked, and will always be found steadfastly resisting the claims of any church which attempts to exercise a controlling power in civil as well as religious affairs in our coun- try. Masonry has set its face against that bold declaration from Rome, ‘that America shall be made Catholic/ ” Numerous additional extracts might be made from the voluminous encyclicals of Leo XIII, as found in the volume from which the above quo- tations have been taken. These, however, are sufficient to show the truth of our position, that the Papal hierarchy or clerical Rome, which is today determined to make America “dominantly Catholic,” is pledged to a system of rule that is absolutely opposed to the theories of popular sovereignty, freedom of worship, speech, press and assembly, absolute divorce of Church and State, and popular secular education, which are cardinal principles of our free democratic gov- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 41 ernment, as is the flat earth theory of Ptolemy opposed to the Copernican theory. There can be no union between these two mighty world theories, for, as we have already observed, they are mutually exclusive. PIUS X’S HOSTILITY TO FREE DEMOCRACY. In Pius IX’s Syllabus we have seen how the Papal power, as voiced by that great Pope, is in deadly opposition to the free democracy of our government. In the utterances of Leo XIII we have found how he also opposed the great democratic de- mands of freedom of speech, divorce of Church and State and popular secular education. In a word, Pius IX and Leo XIII upheld the Papal theory of government and thus were in direct opposition to the free democratic theory of our government. In the following letter of Pope Pius X, de- livered in 1910, he denounces popular sovereignty and upholds class rule, evincing the same narrow intolerance and arrogant spirit of Pius IX. Here also we find the predecessor of the present Pope condemning the political emancipation and funda- mental principles which have been the ideal of all the noblest American democratic statesmen from Thomas Jefferson and Lincoln down to the pres- ent hour. This letter was written to the Arch- bishop and Bishops of France, condemning le Sillon, and dated August 25, 1910. After some preliminary paragraphs, the Pope says: “First of all, we must characterize severely the pretension of the Sillon to escape the direction of ecclesiastical authority. “The leaders of the Sillon, in effect, maintain that they work unon a ground which is not that of the Church; that they pursue only interests of the temporal order and not those of the spiritual order. . . . 42 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “The reply to these subterfuges is only too easy. For whom will they make believe that the Catholic Sillonists, that the priests and the semi- naries enrolled in their ranks, have in view in their social activity only the temporal interests of the working classes? In our opinion that would be to insult them. The truth is that the heads of the Sillon proclaim themselves unalter- able idealists, that they pretend to raise up the laboring classes by first elevating the human conscience: that they have a social doctrine and religious and philosophic principles for the re- construction of society upon a new plan; that they have an especial conception of human dig- nity, liberty and fraternity, and that in order to justify their social dreams they appeal to the gospel interpreted in their own manner; and what is still more serious, to a disfigured and dimin- ished Christ. Moreover, they teach these ideas in their educational societies and inculcate them upon their comrades; they also transfer them to their works. They are, therefore, really profes- sors of social, civic and religious morality, and * * * we have a right to say that the object of the Sillon its character and its action, belong to the moral domain, which is the proper domain of the Church, and that the Sillonists deceive themselves when they believe that they are work- ing upon a ground on the limits of which expire the rights of the doctrinal and directive power of the ecclesiastical authority. “In effect, the Sillon puts forward as a pro- gramme the elevation and regeneration of the working classes. But . in this matter the prin- ciples of Catholic doctrine are fixed.” Condemnation of Popular Sovereignty and Advocacy of Class Rule. “Our predecessor * * * taught that Chris- tian democracy ought to maintain the diversity of classes, which is as surely a fitting character- istic of a well-constituted State, and to which for THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 43 human society the form and character that God, its author, impressed upon it. He denounced a certain democracy which goes so far in perversity as to attribute in society sovereignty to the peo- ple, and to aim at the suppression and the level- ing down of the classes.” Here Pope Pius X, in the year 1910, seconds Leo in reaffirming his hostility to democracy, even going so far as to denounce a social order that preached the sovereignty of the people and the abolition of classes. Yet these are the bed- rocks of our own democratic Republic, which we find Pius here denouncing and summoning Leo to aid him in condemning. Any Roman Catholic who denies this position taken by Leo and empha- sized by Pius X so late as August, 1910, says in so doing that the Pope is' no infallible authority, even when he speaks ex cathedra. Yet according to the Vatican Council, these utterances are “in- fallible” and “irreformable,” and are therefore binding upon all loyal Catholics. The Theory of Our Government in Direct Oppo- sition to the Catholic Doctrine. “What have the leaders of the Slllon done (that is, in opposition to Leo XIII) ? Not only have they adopted a programme and teaching different from that of Leo XIII (which would of itself be a singularly audacious movement on the part of laymen thus taking up concurrent with the Sovereign Pontiff the attitude of directors of social activity in the Church), but they have open- ly rejected the programme traced by Leo XIII and have adopted one diametrically opposed to it; moreover, they reject the doctrine set forth bv Leo XIII as to the essential principles of society, place the authority in the people, or gradually suppress it and strive, as their ideal, to realize the leveling of all classes. In oppo- sition to Catholic doctrine, therefore, they are proceeding toward a condemned ideal.” 44 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. In a word, the suppression of the Sillon was effected by Pius X only by first denying the democratic principle according to which the gov- ernment derived its just power to govern from the governed. The Sillonists were genuine Jeffer- sonians. “Leo XIII,” Pius continues, “formally con- demned this doctrine of political government in his encyclical ‘Dinturnum Illud ,’ in which he says: 'Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who call themselves phil- osophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; that consequently those who exercise power in society do not exer- cise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary to the sentiment of Catholics, who hold that the right of governing comes from God as its natural and necessary principle/ “If the people are the holders of power, what becomes of authority? It is a shadow, a myth; there is no more law properly so called, no more obedience. “The Sillon has recognized this; for in effect it demands, in the name of human dignity, triple emancipation, political, economic and intellectual. The future State, in the formation of which it is engaged, will have no masters or servants; the citizens will be all free, all comrades, all kings. “Thus democracy alone will inaugurate the reign of perfect justice!” the Pope exclaims in horror. “Is it not an insult to other forms of government which are thus degraded to the rank of wretched incapables?” What tender solicitude the Pope has for the other forms of government such as those of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Papal See, which are so opposed to democracy! “There is no hierarchy of government in the Sillon . . . The elite by whom it is directed THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 45 emerge from the rank and file by selection—that is to say, they make their position by their moral authority and their qualities. “Even the priest, on entering, lowers the emi- nent dignity of his priesthood, and by a strange reversal of roles, becomes a scholar, placing him- self on a level with his young friends, so that he is no more than a comrade.” This shows sufficients the spirit of Pius’ en- cyclical in which he condemns a republican ideal of government, the Sillon. “Our Catholic young people are inspired with distrust of the Church, their Mother; they are told that for nineteen centuries she has failed to build up society on its true foundations; that she has not understood the social notions of authority, liberty, equality, fraternity and human dignity; that the great bishops and kings who have created and governed France so gloriously have not been able to provide their people with real justice or happiness because they had not the same ideal as the Sillon.” The rule of the kings of France may reflect the Papal ideal, but when one thinks of the justice of the Bourbons one is tempted to smile, even in the face of the infallible Pope, who has such holy horror of democracy and advancing enlighten- ment. “The Sillon ceased to call itself Catholic, and for the formula ‘the democracy will be Catholic/ it substituted this other, ‘the democracy will not be anti-Catholic,’ any more than it wiil be anti- Jewish or anti-Buddhist.” Intolerance of Spirit of Democracy and Brother- hood. Here note how intolerant the Pope is of the Spirit of brotherhood, the true spirit of democ- racy. When the Sillon followed those lines, “it at- tained its highest influence.” 46 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “For the construction of the future State they annealed to all the workers of all the religions and all the sects.” We earnestly commend the following to the prayerful consideration of Dr. Washington Glad- den and the spineless Protestant ministers who have permitted themselves to become so com- pletely psychologized by Jesuitical casuistry that they see only through the spectacles of the Roman Catholic religionists. “What must we think of an association in which all religions, and even free thought, can manifest themselves openly and at their ease; for the Sillonists, who, at their public conferences and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their individual faith, do not certainly know how to close the mouth of others and to prevent the Protestant from affirming his skepticism?” If anyone wishes to see the bridgeless chasm between the spirit of democracy, civic advance- ment, brotherhood and enlightenment, and that of Rome, let him read the above passage and note how the Pope condemns all those things in which true democracy glories. “Finally, what must we think of a Catholic, who in entering his educational club, leaves his Cathol- icism at the door, in order not to alarm his comrades.” Pius X’s Opposition to the Modern Spirit of Progress. In his preface to the second edition of “Letters to His Holiness Pope Pius X,” Rev. William L. Sullivan shows how Pope Pius X, even in the twentieth century, exhibited the same spirit of narrow intolerance toward free institutions, free- dom of conscience and the ideals of the democratic state that have marked historic Rome throughout the ages, since the eighth century. This criticism is especially interesting as coming from a thinker who, after being educated in the best Catholic institutions of America, became Professor of THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 47 Moral Theology in the Paulist House of Studies, affiliated with the Catholic University at Wash- ington. Concerning liberty of conscience Mr. Sullivan observes : “Concerning liberty of conscience the Pope, in these latter days, has fairly startled the world by the manner in which he has shown his hostil- ity to it.* He vehemently protested against the recent Spanish law, which consulted common de- cency to the extent of permitting non-Catholic churches in Spain to post notices of service, and to bear the customary outward signs of a house of worship. And through his secretary of Latin briefs he addressed to the monk Lepicier, author of ‘De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis a com- mendatory letter which says: ‘By this work you have given great gratification to the Sovereign Pontiff. * * * Wherefore, the Holy Father congratulates you heartily, and praying that the book may be of great profit to many, lovingly bestows upon you the Apostolic benediction/ This book which, in this twentieth century has rejoiced the heart of Pius X, declares (p. 194) that public heretics deserve not merely to be excommunicated, but to be killed (‘sed etiam dignos esse qui per morten e vivis suferantur’) ; that the power to murder heretics belongs both to the State and the Church (p. 195); that the Church has the power of putting to death even repentant heretics (p. 199); that we should not shrink from utter- ing this teaching out of regard for the sentiment of the modern age (p. 201); that we should re- member that the Church has canonized King Ferdinand III of Castile, and inserts in the breviary these words in praise of him: ‘He per- mitted no heretics to dwell in his kingdom, and with his own hands brought wood to the stake for their burning’ (p. 202); that the Church toler- ates heretics now because it is not prudent to kill them (pp. 208-209); and finally, that the Pope has the power to depose secular rulers who 48 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. abandon Catholicism, and to absolve the subjects of such rulers from their allegiance (p. 210).” Pius X on the Protestant Reformation. Pius X, the predecessor of the present Pope, speaking as pontifical head of the Church, in his encyclical published May 26, 1910, gave what may be termed the present-day view of the Ro- man hierarchy in regard to the Protestant Ref- ormation and its great leaders—that wonderful movement that ushered in the new day of pro- gressive, enlightened and scientific advancement and rendered possible the advent of democracy based on freedom of conscience, speech, press and assembly, and divorce of Church and State. “In those days [the sixteenth century] pas- sions ran riot and the knowledge of truth was almost completely perverted and obscured; there was a continual struggle with errors, and hu- man society, going from bad to worse, seemed to be rushing toward the abyss. In the midst of these errors rose up proud and rebellious men, enemies of the cross of Christ, * * * men of earthly sentiments whose god is their belly. These, bent not on correcting morals but on denying the dogmas, multiplied the disorders, loosening for themselves and for others the bridle of licentiousness, and, contemning the au- thoritative guidance of the Church to pander to the passions of the most corrupt princes and peoples, with a virtual tyranny overturned its doctrine, constitution, discipline. “Then, imitating these sinners to whom was addressed the menace, ‘Woe to you who call evil good and good evil/ that tumult of rebellion and that perversion of faith and morals they called reformation and themselves reformers. But, in truth, they were corrupters; for, undermining with dissensions and wars the forces of Europe, they paved the way for the rebellions and the apostasy of modern times, in which were united THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 49 and renewed in one onslaught those three kinds of conflict, hitherto separated, from which the church had always issued victorious: the bloody conflicts of the first ages, then the internal pest of heresies, and, finally, under the name of evangelical liberty, a vicious corruption and a perversion of discipline unknown perhaps in medieval times.” Pius X’s Laws Against Modernism. In Motu Proprio, the encyclical of Pius X de- livered September 1, 1910, we have the ban placed on reason, modem scientific scholarship and critical research—one of the latest tangible illustrations of how Rome blights and checks in- tellectual advancement. "I. Scholastic philosophy as taught by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century is to be made the basis of all theology and science. “II. Only such directors and professors who in no way deviate from the doctrinal views of St. Thomas may be chosen in the future for the seminaries and schools. “III. Writings infected with modernism must sedulously be kept from students; especially the modernistic writings of brilliant thinkers who captivate the fancy of young minds must be kept from entering seminaries or prevented from being in any way accessible to students. Rooks which reveal modernistic tendencies must be censured and denounced. “IV. The sale, but even the printing, of mod- ernistic books must be hindered by all means. Book stores must be boycotted if they dare to print, publish or carry books destructive of the hierarchy. “The censor’s name must be kept secret until he can issue a permission for the book to be printed lest he be annoyed by the authors while doing the work, or inconvenienced for suppress- 50 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. ing it, if need be, because of erroneous tendencies. Only books and papers may be printed and edited as will strengthen the God-ordained hier- archy. “The bishop may prevent a book approved by some other bishop, in his own diocese, if he sees so fit; because what is good for some parts of a country is often detrimental in another part. “Priests are forbidden to gather in large con- gresses and discuss such questions as modern- ism, presbyterianism or laicism. “V. There is no use for the Pontiff to make laws unless they are carried out. Hence it is necessary to establish Vigilance Committees composed of tried, matured and doctrinally sound priests in each diocese, who must pass upon everything that is being printed and circulated, and prevent the poison settling anywhere among the faithful. “VI. A complete espionage is established, so that the Roman Pontiff’s prescriptions are obeyed. “VII. The bishops of all dioceses must fur- nish one year after this Motu Proprio has been published, and thenceforward every three years, a sworn report that the Papal injunctions have been literally carried out, and as to the doctrines that are spread in seminaries and other Catho- lic institutions.” The oath to be made by each priest and all those who become priests is against modernism, against progress and the evolutionary idea. Can anyone doubt the intolerant position of Rome toward honest and serious-minded schol- arship after reading the above ex cathedra ut- terances of the head of the Roman Catholic Church, given as late as September, 1910? THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 51 PART III. In the Historic Background. IMPORTANT HISTORIC FACTS AND ILLUS- TRATIONS RELATING TO THE PAST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH AND ITS AT- TITUDE TOWARD STATE AND INDIVIDUAL, FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, THOUGHT AND SPEECH. In this division of the Manual we notice some historical facts and general data valuable for all persons who would judge of present condi- tions in the light of history, and other data that has a very direct bearing on the titanic warfare between the democratic and Papal ideals or theo- ries of government now in progress in America. Why It Is Necessary to Recall the Past. The politico-religionists of the Roman Catho- lic Church, and their Protestant echoes and apolo- gists, are very sensitive about reference to the Inquisition and other important passages in the history of the Roman Church whenever and wherever she had the power to compass her de- sires or force compliance to her dogmas. Why, they say, recall the past? Let us grant once and for all that there was persecution and bloody deeds during the past centuries; but they were due largely to the fact that the age was savage and lawless. Protestants, as well as r 52 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Catholics, persecuted; so there is no reason to mention by-gones, as they have no intimate bear- ing on present-day conclusions. This sounds plausible, and to the superficial may seem convincing. Unfortunately, like so much Roman Catholic casuistry, this plea is fun- damentally and fatally defective in two of its major assumptions and implications. The Papacy Holds Today the Same Theory It Held in the Days of the Inquisition. First, the Papacy has not renounced the In- quisition and repudiated the bulls and authoriza- tions or sanctions of its deeds. It has not repudiate3 the old claim of the right of the Church, when it has the power, to exer- cise temporal authority. It has not renounced the right to interfere with freedom of conscience of the individual, to prohibit those it can control from writing or even from reading what the Pope or the Church is not ready to accept. It is today, as in the days when Rome was politically powerful, jealous of any intimation that a Catholic may be independent in political matters or express ideas on secular subjects that are not in accord with the Pope.* It is today, as in the past, bitterly opposed to the exhibition of religious toleration or hospi- tality to Protestants or so-called heretics. § Now let us notice these two pleas advanced in justification of silence as to the past of the so- called infallible Church and its infallible head: *See Part II, Leo’s Opposition to Fundamental Democ- racy and Syllabus of Pius IX. Also Part V The Popes versus The Knights of Columbus. §See Part II, Pius X’s Laws Against Modernism, Hos- tility to Free Democracy and Opposition to the Modern Spirit of Progress. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 53 First, that the age was one of cruelty and savagery, and the Church merely reflected the spirit of the age. Could an Infallible Church in Any Age Become the Incarnation of Inhumanity? The Church, founded by the humble Nazarene, who taught non-resistance and who was the su- preme embodiment of love, should surely have sought to overcome the darkness and savagery of the age with the light of love, as Christ taught, instead of systematizing and perfecting a vast machine for administering the most cruel tortures or for indulging in wholesale slaughter of human life, for no crime other than honestly exercising the reason. Furthermore, if the Church in her councils is infallible, uttering the very truth of the very God, and if the head of the Church when he speaks ex cathedra is infallible, what shall be said of the authoritative utterances that made possible the persecutions and wholesale slaugh- ters during the past centuries, which were spe- cifically authorized by the Church and her popes? Second, Protestants persecuted, so there is no more reason for recalling the past of Rome, be- cause of her persecuting spirit, than there is for opposing Protestantism and dwelling on its per- secutions. Here again we find ourselves in the presence of a typical example of Roman sophistry. In retaliation, on occasions, Protestants persecuted; but Protestantism, standing for the right of man to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience and the right to exercise his reason, could not logically justify persecution. Its po- sition forced it to accept an ever-broadening lib- erty for the individual, and it also led to a grow- ing sentiment against union of Church and State. The fundamental position of Protestant- ism made for mental emancipation and intel- lectual hospitality, which rendered possible and 54 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. inevitable the advent of modern democracy based on freedom of conscience, speech, press and as- sembly—a democracy that does not and cannot square with the arrogant assumptions of the Pope and the Papal hierarchy. This Republic affords a striking illustration of the legitimate outcome of the fundamental posi- tion of the Protestant Reformation,* as it is also a luminous example of the ideal of a true democ- racy based on absolute freedom of speech, press and assembly. At the founding of the Republic, long before the tide of immigration set in from Catholic lands, the Roman Catholics were a comparatively insignificant minority; but thanks to such funda- mental democrats as Jefferson, Franklin and Paine the rights of Catholics no less than those of Protestants were fully safeguarded, in spite of the opposition of a narrow-minded minority who argued that since the Roman Catholic Church and the governments under its control prohibited freedom of speech, press and assembly, and of worship, no equal freedom should be shown to Catholics. The friends of the broader liberty, or of the free Protestant democratic ideal, triumphed, how- ever; and it is to safeguard this vital liberty that true patriots are everywhere answering the trumpet call of duty and democracy. For though the opposition has much to say about patriotism and liberty, so long as it is engaged in militant attempts to prevent complete freedom of speech and press; so long as it is warring against our fundamental democratic principles of complete separation, or the ignoring on the part of the State of any church; so long as it is engaged in battling against that great bulwark of free democracy, the secular public educational system; and finally, so long as the Pope and the hierarchy *A position today, as in the past, bitterly opposed by the Papal hierarchy. See Pius X on the Protestant Re- formation. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 55 are unwilling' to grant freedom of conscience, speech and assembly to all the people—the same freedom in Catholic lands as Protestant America grants to Roman Catholics—any talk of freedom or patriotism by those who are actively combat- tiitg the fundamental theories of our free democ- racy, and who owe their religious allegiance to the head of the Church, who, according to the latest Church Council, is the infallible mouthpiece of Divine Truth when he speaks ex cathedra , is as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. Professions and promises are cheap, and utterly worthless when not backed up fey practices. THE POPES OF ROME. Important Historical Data Compiled From Au thoritative Sources, Largely Braukhause’s Encyclopedia. During the first three centuries the history of the Christian Church is shadowy and vague, ow- ing to imperial attempts to suppress early Chris- tianity and the violent persecutions of all known Christians, together with the fact that the char- acter of society in general and the facilities for obtaining reliable data and handing it down un- tainted and untampered with, make this period of little value for men and women of modern times, where facts rather than vague, unsup- ported and oftentimes palpably absurd traditions ask for recognition. The Traditionary Period. It is claimed by some authorities that two of the Bishops of Rome, Victor I (190-202) and Stephan I (253-257) claimed supremacy for their Bishopric. It does not appear that any other A 56 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Bishops made any such claims during the first 314 years of the Church. In this connection the following from the work of Hon. Thomas E. Watson on “The Roman Cath- olic Hierarchy” (pp. 49-50) contains an epitome of the facts and conclusions of scholarship which does not especially hold a brief for Rome. “After Constantine had effected the union of Church and State, and the Emperor Julian had made his futile effort to restore paganism, it became the burning ambition of the Bishops of Rome to acquire for themselves the monopoly of riches, power and prestige which the Pontifex Maximus had lost. No historical trace can be discovered to prove that such a design had ever been harbored by a Christian bishop prior to the compact with Constantine. Absolute equality reigned among the bishops, excepting a greater respect and admiration which it was natural to pay to those prelates who enjoyed a greater rep- utation for piety, oratory, or scholarship. So late as A. D. 533, we find the Fifth General Council, held in Constantinople, presided over by Menna, the Patriarch of that city. In fact, we do not find the Bishop of Rome presiding at all, until after the seventh century. “As to the title of Pope, we find it expressly repudiated by a Bishop of Rome nearly six hun- dred years after . Christ. “In answer to a letter which he had received from Eulogius of Alexandria, who had called Gregory of Rome ‘a universal bishop/ Gregory replied: ‘I have said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind. And lo! in the preface of your letter you apply to me, who prohibited it, the proud title of “universal pope”; which thing I beg your most sweet holiness to do no more, because what is given to others beyond what reason requires is subtracted from you. I do not esteem that an honor by which I know that my brethren lose their honor. I am then truly honored when all and each are allowed the honor that is due them. k. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 57 For if your holiness calls me universal pope, you deny yourself to be that which you call universal (that is, your own self to be no pope). But no more of this; away with words which inflate pride and wound charity.” He even objects to the expression: ‘as thou hast commanded/ which occurred in his correspondent’s letter. ‘Which word “commanded” I pray you to let me hear no more; for I know what I am and what you are; in position you are my brethren, in man- ners you are my father. I did not, therefore, command, but desired only to indicate what seemed to be inexpedient.’ “It must be perfectly clear to your mind that unless the Catholic hierarchy can establish an unbroken succession to Peter, their foundation falls to pieces. The next time you meet a priest you might ask him how the Pope can claim title through a predecessor who emphatically disowned it, as Gregory the Great did.” Following the traditional period above referred to, we come to what is termed The Second Period. Sylvester I (314-335). Marcus (336). Julius I (336-352). Liberius (352-366). Felix II (355-358). Damasus I (366-384). Syricius (384-398). Anastasius I (398-402). Innocent I (402-417). Zosimus (417-418). Boniface I (418-422). Coelestine I (422-432). Sixtus III (432-440). Leo I (440-461). Hilarius (461-468). 58 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Simplicius (468-483). Felix III (483-492). Gelasius I (492-496). Anastasius II (496-498). Symmachus (498-514). Hormisdas (514-523). John l (523-526). Felix IV (526-530). Boniface II (530-532). John II (532-535). Agapetus I (535-536). Sylverius (536-537). Vigilius (537-555). Pelagius I (555-560). John III (560-573). Benedict I (574-578). Pelagius II (578-590). Gregory I (the Great) (590-604). The second period (fourth to seventh centuries) comprises all the more or less spasmodic efforts of the See of Rome to gain supremacy over all Christendom. Emperor Gratian in 378, and Valentinian III in 445, conferred upon the Roman Bishops respect- ively the highest power to adjudicate all purely ecclesiastical and ownership questions. The political ruler of Italy, it is true, dominated the Church and guided its destiny a good deal at will. Justinian I, East Roman Emperor, from 535 on mixed himself up minutely in all Church matters. But in 568 the power of the East Roman Emperor was broken by the victorious Longobards in upper Italy. Pope Gelasius toward the end of the fifth cen- tury dared to make the famous statement that the Roman Pontiff, successor to St. Peter, had no earthly judge over himself. Gregory the Great, while refusing personally to be called ecumenical Patriarch, believed in the fullest independence of the Church from the State, and rather in the sub- jugation of the State by the Church. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 59 Third Period. Sabinianus (604-606). Boniface III (607). Boniface IV (608-615). Deusdedit (615-618). Boniface V (619-625). Honorius I (625-638). Severinus (640). John IV (640-642). Theodor I (642-649). Martin I (649-653). Eugene I (654-657). Vitalian (657-672). Adeotatus (672-676). Dominus (676-678). Agatho (678-682). Leo II (682-683). Benedict II (683-685). John V (685-687). Conon (687-701), Sergius I (687-701)—2 Popes. John VI (701-705). John VII (705-707). Sisinnius (708). Constantine I (708-715). Gregory II (715-731). Gregory III (731-752). Zachary (741-752). Stephan II (752). Stephan III (752-757). Paul I (757-767). Constantine II (767-768). Philippus (768). Stephan IV (768-772). Hadrian I (772-795). Leo III (795-816). Stephan V (816-817). Pascal I (817-824). Eugene II (824-827). 60 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL,. Valentine (827). Gregory IV (827-844). Sergius II (844-847). Leo IV (847-855). Benedict III (855-858). The third period, from Gregory I to Niclas I (858), or from the seventh to the middle of the ninth, century, is the time of consolidation of the Roman Primacy among the Germanic peoples. Pippin, the mayor of the Merovingian family under King Childeric III, made himself King of the Franks, founding the Carolingian dynasty. Pope Zachary assisted him in banishing the last Merovingian king to a monastery. Pippin helped Stephan II to conquer the vexatious Longobards, most of whom were Aryans. Charlemagne com- pleted their destruction. Both Pippin and Charle- magne, his son, created by force of arms the tem- poral dominion of the Roman See. Leo III, in acknowledgment of the services of Charlemagne, crowned him Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A. D. The Pope became in a sense a subject of the Emperor. But the Emperor depended for his be- ing anointed upon the Pope, and soon the idea found its way into the public mind that the Emperor received his exalted office at the hands of the Pope of Rome. Charles the Bald, in 875, was forced to admit that the dignity of Emperor was a mere gift from Pope John VIII. Out of this subserviency of the State to the Church arose the powerful and de- structive quarrels between Church and State in the Middle Ages. Fourth Period. Niclas I (858-867). Hadrian II (867-872). John VIII (872-882). Martin II (882-884). THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 61 Hadrian III (884-885). Stephan VI (885-891). Formosus (891-896). Boniface VI (896). Stephan VII (896-897). Roman (897). Theodor II (897). John IX (897-900). Benedict IV (900-903). Leo V (903). Christophorus (903-904). Sergius III (904-911). Anastasias III (911-913). Laudo (913-914). John X (914-928). Leo VI (928-929). I Stephan VIII (929-931). John XI (931-936). Leo VII (936-939). Stephan IX (939-942). Martin III (942-946). Agapetus II (946-955). John XII (955-963). Leo VIII (963-965), (Otto I selected Pope). ,Benedict V (964), (Elected by partizans of John XII). John XIII (965-972). Benedict VI (972-974). Benedict VII (974-983). John XIV (983-984). Boniface VII (984-985). John XV (985-996). Gregory V (996-999). John XVI (anti pope till 998). Sylvester II (999-1003). John XVII (1003). John XVIII (1003-1009). Sergius IV (1009-1012). | Benedict VIII (1012-1024). 62 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. John XIX (1024-1033). Benedict IX (1033-1045). Gregory VI (1045-1046). This fourth period shows the decline of the Papacy after a brief climax of power, to the very brink of chaos and moral depravity. What long hindered the Papacy from realizing its ambitions fully was the suzerainty of the Emperor and the power the methopolitans enjoyed in virtue of their positions. With the division of the Empire of Charlemagne passed away the first, and with the rise of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals (see article on this subject), purporting to establish tradition- al claims for the primacy of the Roman See, passed away the second, obstacle in the way of Papal ambitions. Another forgery, the so-called Donation of Con- stantine—purporting to be a genuine legal trans- fer of political power to the Pope of Rome, over Italy and all the occidental provinces—was utilized by the Papal cliques in their efforts to firmly root in the minds of the people the idea of a universal Papal monarchy ordained by God. It was said that Constantine, out of reverence for the Pope's position, freely removed to Constantinople to let the Popes have full charge of the Occident. Not until the fifteenth century was the document known to be a forgery; but it had done its work. Pope Niclas I succeeded in breaking down the metropolitan power and independence, by taking Archbishop Hinkmar of Reims to task and bring- ing him to his knees by means of the Isidorean Decretals purporting to have apostolic weight and value and declaring Papal supremacy. With the division of Charlemagne's power among his ever weakening family, the Papal as- sertiveness and initiative grew by leaps and bounds. In 875 we see John VIII choose emperors at will—Charles the Bald at first. On his death (in 877) he wavered between Louis the Stam- merer, Charles' son, next Boso, Duke of Lombardy, brother-in-law of Charles-; but finally settled upon Charles the Fat, or the Third, who proved unequal THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 63 to the protection of Rome against the Saracens and other rival opponents ambitious of the Im- perial crown. The Pope made a poor selection in choosing Charles the Fat. In 896 the Roman people took the oath of fealty to the new Emperor, Arnulph, who suc- ceeded by force Charles the Fat, provided it in- terfered not with the honor and loyalty which they owed to the Pope. (See Alzog’s Manual of Church History, Vol. II, p. 291.) Stephan VI was strangled in prison in 897. Roman and Theodor II were also murdered by the partisans of Stephan VI within one year. Arnulph himself died in 899. This left Italy in the hands of factions. The Marquises Theodora the elder and her daughters, Theodora the younger and Marozia, dominated Rome and the Papacy. From Sergius II on (904-911, and for one hun- dred years) only vice-eaten favorites could be- come Popes. This was due to the wily trio of women, the Marquises Theodora the elder and the younger, and Marozia. John X was murdered by command of Marozia, for trying to destroy her influence over Rome. Marozia had her own son by her first husband elected Pope as John XI. JolnTs brother Alberic, succeeding in making himself Prince and Senator of Rome, put Pope John, his brother, in prison and for three years exercised political and Papal duties himself. (See Alzog’s Manual of Church History, vol. II, p. 296.) Otto I, who succeeded his father Henry I, called the Fowler, in 963, deposed John XII, who be- came Pope at the age of eighteen, when a mere licentious youth, but of a rising noble family. One year before that, in 962, after his triumphal entry into Rome, whither he went to protect John against Berengarius II and his son Adelbert, he said to the pope: “I swear to thee, Pope John, in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, that having reached Rome in safety, I shall 64 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. do all that in me lies to exalt the Church of Rome and her Pastor.” (See Alzog’s Manual of Church History, Vol. II, p. 301.) Leo VIII, the anti-pope, was selected through the influence of Otto. John XII finally died of cerebral apoplexy, with- out the Viaticum, in 964. Leo VIII was opposed by another anti-pope, Benedict V, whom Otto finally banished to Ham- burg. Upon Leo’s death, John XIII was elected and maintained in power by Otto, after killing thirteen of his principal opponents in 867. The Papacy was drenched in blood. Benedict VI was elected Pope in 867, after John’s death. He crowned Otto II, a youth of fourteen, Emperor in 973. Otto II it was who adopted the imperial globe, surmounted by a cross, as the symbol of the principle that an alliance between Church and State is essential. Cardinal Boniface Franco was at the bottom of the conspiracy which ended in the murder ot Benedict VI in 974. Boniface succeeded in mak- ing himself Pope as Boniface VII, but after one month’s stay in the Papal chair he was forced to flee. He fled to Constantinople, but took first a large amount of the treasure of St. Peter’s Church. (See Alzog’s Manual of Church History, vol. II, p. 308.) Otto II died in 983. Pope John XIV was in the chair. Pope Boniface returned from Constantinople by the help of his party, imprisoned John, and caused him to die of hunger in 984. John XV succeeded him in 984. Otto III was invited by John to come to Rome to free the Papacy from Crescentius Numentanus. Before reaching Rome, John died. Otto made Bruno, his nephew, Pope, who took the name of Gregory V. Crescentius, a noble, stirred up a plot against Gregory V, and in 997 placed Philogathos, Bishop of Piazenza, upon the Papal chair as John XVI. THE PATRIOT’S MA N U A L . 65 Otto returned to Rome, had Crescentius and twelve others of his principal adherents beheaded, the nose of the anti-Pope cut off, his tongue wrenched from his mouth, his eyes burnt out, and he was thus thrown into prison and starved. Upon the premature death of Gregory V, in 999, Otto placed Gerbert, his second tutor, as Sylvester II upon the Papal throne. Sylvester was wise in turning the troubled and savage spirits of his time away from the Papacy and against the infidels who held the sepulcher of Christ in their possession. Henry II of Bavaria succeeded Otto III in 1002- 1024. He entered into a compact with Pope Bene- dict VIII, freed the Papacy in 1013 from disturb- ers, was crowned Emperor, and he it was who gave the force of Imperial laws to the decrees enacted by Benedict at the Synod of Pavia, in 1018. Thus Church and State alliance was fostered down through the centuries, to the detriment of the human family. Benedict IX, a youth of between twelve and eighteen, far more proficient in vice than be- came one of his age, was elected Pope in 1033. “Six members of the House of Tusculum had al- ready been forced upon the Papal throne and now Count Alberic, the brother of Benedict VIII and John XIX, succeeded by means of unbounded bribery.” “For eleven years did this profligate disgrace the chair of St. Peter.” (See Alzog’s Manual of Church History, vol. II, p. 316.) Pope Victor III, one of his successors, said of Benedict IX “that it was only with feelings of horror he could bring himself to relate how dis- graceful, outrageous and execrable was the con- duct of this man after he had taken the priest’s orders.” (See Alzog as above.) This Benedict IX was finally driven from Rome. Sylvester III, the anti-pope, was elected in 1044, after public opinion had been reconciled by the distribution of much money. His powerful family 66 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. helped him to be reinstated in his office. But now he proposed a marriage between himself and his cousin, whose father withheld consent unless he resigned from the Papacy. Archpriest John, fearing that so great a scandal as the Pope’s marriage would disintegrate the Church, pleaded with Benedict to retire from office, and at the same time offered him a vast sum of money. The Pope accepted the money and practiced his vices in quiet haunts. Archpriest John was now elected in place of Benedict IX and took the name of Gregory VI. But Benedict IX soon repented of his retirement and again asserted his right to the throne. Thus the world had three Popes and more trouble than ever. Henry III, who was now Emperor, deposed them all three and put up, in 1946, at Sutri, Clement II. In connection with the scandalous lives of the Popes just described, Alzog, the Catholic Church historian, cites the words of Pope Leo I. “The dignity of St. Peter does not lose that character, even when lodged in an unworthy successor to his office.” (See Alzog’s Manual of Church His- tory, vol. II, pp. 318-319.) Fifth Period. Clement II (1046-1047). Damasus II (1048). Leo IX (1049-1054). Victor II (1054-1057). Stephan X (1057-1058). Benedict X (1058). Niclas II (1058-1061). Alexander II (1061-1073). Gregory VII (1073-1085). Victor III (1086-1087). Urban II (1088-1099). Pascal II (1099-1118). THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 67 Gelasius II (1118-1119). Calixt II (1119-1124). Honorius II (1124-1130). Innocent II (1130-1143). Coelestine II (1143-1144). Lucius II (1144-1145). Eugene III (1145-1153). Anastasius IV (1153-1154). Hadrian IV (1154-1159). Alexander III (1159-1181). Lucius III (1181-1185). Urban III (1185-1187). Gregory VIII (1187). Clement III (1187-1191). Coelestine III (1191-1198). Innocent III (1198-1216). Honorius III (1216-1227). Gregory IX (1227-1241). Coelestine LV (1241). Innocent IV (1243-1254). Alexander IV (1254-1261). Urban IV (1261-1264). Clement IV (1265-1268). Gregory X (1271-1276). Innocent V (1276). Hadrian V (1276). John XXI (1276-1277). Niclas III (1277-1280). Martin IV (1281-1285). Honorius IV (1285-1287). Niclas IV (1288-1292). Coelestine V (1294). The fifth period, from the Synod of Sutri in 1046 to the end of the thirteenth century, wit- nessed the unparalleled rise of Papal power. After Henry Ill’s imperial reign (1039-1056), the State power waned till kings became beggars art the hands of Popes. Having once tasted the mad joy of temporal power, the Popes would no 68 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. more yield obedience to the State or be recon- ciled to a dependence on the secular power. Pope Niclas II issued a bull restricting the Papal electorate to Cardinals alone. Niclas II and Alexander II (1061-1073), both instigated by Cardinal Hildebrand who succeeded Alexander as Gregory VII, humiliated the State in the person of Henry IV, Emperor of Germany. • There is no doubt that Henry was of a perverse mind. He stole all the valuable stones from churches that he could, and gave them to his concubines. He extorted vast sums from those on whom he bestowed Church dignities and who received from him lucrative praebends, bishop- rics and abbeys. Fearing that unless he submitted to the Pope he would lose his throne altogether, he went to Canossa, met Gregory, and after three days’ fast- ing and standing barefoot in the snow from morning till night, he was finally, absolved, but as it proved later, not converted. The high-handed meddling of the Popes in the political affairs of his country during his minor- ship, after fhe death of his father in 1056, no doubt had a great deal to do in disposing him unkindly toward the Church and in making him distrustful of its influence. Nowhere can the evil influence of Church and State bound in one be seen as right here. The basic idea of Gregory VII was to establish one government, with the Pope as the only and real head and with secular rulers, but as tolerated representatives whose power the Pope could re- voke and bestow ad libitum. Gregory VII comprehended the value of CELIBACY for the PAPACY; a fatherless and childless obedient following of men could only strengthen its loyalty to the Church. Only at- tachments, ties for herself could the papacy approve of. The bishops lost absolute control of the affairs of their bishoprics as the Papal legates at will THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 69 interfered in local matters. The system of cen- tralization on the most stupendous scale the world ever knew was systematically built up until noth- ing was free save the Pope, in the sense of an omnipotent being. The Pope and Christ became well-nigh identical. What Gregory VII was unable to accomplish, his successors in time did. The Diet at Worms decided the question of in- vestiture in favor of the Papacy. That was good for civilization; as the secular power should have nothing to do with mere religious matters, so, vice versa, religious authorities should have noth- ing to say or do with the field of political prob- lems. But Rome has ever refused to recognize this truth. Pope Hadrian IV (1154-1159) started a crusade against the Hohenstauffen emperors which ended in the extinction of that romantic family. Alexander III outlived two anti-popes. It must be noted that Arnold of Brescia, a dreamer of republican ideals, was about to thwart both political and ecclesiastical autocracy. Politi- cally distasteful to Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor of Germany, Arnold was demanded by him from those nobles who sheltered him against Hadrian. Fearing for their own lives, they handed him over to Frederic, who in turn delivered him over to Hadrian. The Prefect of Rome ordered him to be burned after he was hung, and his ashes scattered to the winds. Free speech suffered agonies. But Innocent III saw himself as God’s only representative, trustee, guardian, judge of all things. Kings knelt at his feet. The world was created in order that the Pope could have a place to govern. Unlike the saying of Christ, that the Sabbath was made for man, man was made for the Sabbath. The world was made for the Pope. John of England was deposed by him and received his kingdom back again only as a fief. 70 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. King Phillip August of France had to abide by the Pope’s rulings in conjugal matters. It is also to be noted that Pope Innocent annulled the Magna Charta wrenched from John by the nobles, because the nobles thereby had broken their oath of fealty and infringed upon the King’s suzerain- ty. (See Alzog’s Manual of Church History, vol. II, p. 552.) Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Aragon and Sicily paid tribute to the Pope. Kings called themselves the sons of Popes. Innocent III sided with Frederic II, his royal protege, against Otto IV, who proved recreapt and injurious to the Church. But Frederic II himself proved ruinous to the peace of the Church, —another proof of the utter impossibility of a harmonious coexistence of Church and State un- less they are separated. Pope Innocent believed in the connection of Church and State in such a manner that the Church is served by the State in the manner the Church prescribes. Frederic II fought bitterly against both Pope Gregory IX and Innocent IV, and also his son Conrad maintained himself against the Papal encroachments. But Conradin, his grandson, suf- fered death at the hands of Charles of Anjou, the courtesan of the Pope. The Papacy finally defeated imperialism!. History shows that the peace of man is best served when Church and State are absolutely divorced and citizens enjoy absolute freedom of ideas and of speech, so long as the lives and rights of individuals are respected. Sixth Period. Boniface VIII (1294-1303). Benedict XI (1303-1304). Clement V (1305-1314). John XXII (1316-1334). Benedict XII (1334-1342). THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 71 Clement VI (1342-1352). Innocent VI (1352-1362). Urban V (1362-1370). Gregory XI (1370-1378). Popes in Rome. Urban VI (1378- 1389). Boniface IX (1389- 1404). Innocent VII (1404- 1406). Gregory XII (1406- 1415). Martin V (1417-1431). Eugene IV (1431-1447). Felix V (1440-1449). Niclas V (1447-1455). Calixt III (1455-1458). Pius II (1458-1464). Paul II (1464-1471). Sixtus IV (1471-1484). Popes in Avignon. Clement VII (1378- 1394). Benedict XIII (1394- 1424). Alexander V (1409- 1410). John XXIII (1410- 1415). Innocent VIII (1484-1492). Alexander VI (1492-1503). Pius III (1503). Julius II (1503-1513). During the sixth period we witness a gradual decay of Papal power. Reformation spelled Independence of Conscience from Rome, from the Papacy. It is the outcome of all the travail and groanings in past centuries. Rome’s insistence on governing the consciences of all men with an iron rule broke on the rock of experience that diverse knowledge is better than uniform ignor- ance. The Papacy destroyed the Imperial State in Germany. The French nobles profited by Ger- many’s prostration; but at once French power was opposed to the Papacy, which now, under Boni- 72 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. face VIII, in vain, of course, made a tremendous effort to make people believe in its claims. Clement V sided in with Boniface VIII against King Phillip the Fair of France, when the latter refused to acknowledge Boniface as his master and forbade the sending of tithes and the Peter’s Pence to Rome. But to realize his ambition to become Pope, he literally sold himself to Phillip. Without going to Rome, he became Pope in 1305. In 1309 he translated the Papal See to Avignon in France. He annulled all the curses and inter- dicts pronounced by Boniface VIII against Phillip and France itself, bestowed on Phillip the right to all the tithes for five years, and made all of Phillip’s favorites Cardinals. His court was characterized by simony, avarice and lewdness. Gregory XI returned in 1377 from Avignon to Rome. Gregory condemned nineteen theses of John Wycliffe. Urban VI, a native of Naples, elected Pope in 1378, asserted himself so powerfully against the domination of Cardinals, that they proceeded to elect an anti-pope, Clement VII who fled to Avig- non. Urban had six Cardinals executed in 1385 on the ground that they had conspired against him. To increase the finances, Urban reduced the fifty year jubilee to thirty-three years. He died in 1389, probably of poison. The two Papal courts, one in Rome and the other in Avignon, required for their maintenance a tremendous sum of money each year. The burden was put upon the people and the minor clergy. Christendom presented a pitiable spec- tacle. Church councils reflected little of the true spirit of Christianity. The Reformation was being rendered inevitable. It came, under the initiative of Martin Luther, in 1517. The Popes received for their own purposes half of all the tithes of occidental Christendom. Moneys were gathered usually under the plea THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 73 of help against the Turks in Palestine, but little of the vast amount was utilized for that purpose. Most of it went in support of the Papal court, for graft and bribes among the Roman barons, and for purposes of pure nepotism. Some Popes of the Renaissance. During the Renaissance the Papacy reached the height of secularization. Gross licentiousness, lust for power and for wealth led to an era during which the heads of the Church which claimed to be the depository of divine truth, were men whose careers would have placed an indelible stigma on the history of any purely secular line of kings. John Addington Symonds, the brilliant and care- ful English historian, in his “Short History of the Renaissance in Italy,” gives a vivid picture of some of these Popes, from which we extract the following as giving a faint idea of the degradation that marked the Bishops of Rome when the Church was rich beyond the dreams of avarice and well-nigh all-powerful: “Having bribed the most venal members of the Sacred College, Francesco della Rovere was elected Pope and assumed the name of Sixtus IV. “He began his career with a lie; for though he succeeded to the avaricious Paul, who had spent his time in amassing money which he did not use, he declared that he only found 5,000 florins in the Papal treasury. This assertion was proved false by the prodigality with which he lavished wealth immediately upon his nephews. It is difficult even to hint at the horrible suspicions which were cast upon the birth of two of the Pope’s nephews, and upon the nature of his weakness for them; yet the private life of Sixtus rendered the most mon- strous stories plausible. We may, however, dwell upon the principal features of his nepotismi; for Sixtus was the first Pontiff who deliberately or- ganized a system of pillaging the Church in order to exalt his family to principalities. But Christen- 74 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. dom beheld in Sixtus not merely the spectacle of a Pope who trafficked in the bodies of his sub- jects and the holy things of his office, to squander ill-gotten gold upon abandoned minions; the peace of Italy was destroyed by desolating wars in the advancement of the most worthless fa- vorites.****** “Most singular is the attitude of a Sixtus — indulging his lust and pride in the Vatican, adorn- ing the chapel called after his name with master- pieces, rending Italy with broils for the aggrand- izement of favorites, haggling over the prices to be paid for bishoprics, extorting money from starved provinces, plotting murder against his enemies, hounding the semi-barbarous Swiss mountaineers on Milan by indulgences, refusing aid to Venice in her championship against the Turk—yet meanwhile thinking to please God by holocausts of Moors, by myriads of famished Jews, conferring on a faithless and avaricious Ferdinand the title of Catholic, endeavoring to wipe out his sins by the blood of others, to burn his own vices in the autos da fe of Seville, and by the foundation of that diabolical engine, the In- quisition, to secure the fabric of his own infamy from undermining. “After Sixtus IV came Innocent VIII. His secular name was Giambattista Cibo. The Sacred College, terrified by the experience of Sixtus into thinking that another Pope so reckless in his crea- tion of scandalous cardinals might ruin Christen- dom, laid the most solemn obligations on the Pope-elect. Cibo took oaths on every relic, by every saint, to every member of the conclave, that he would maintain a certain order of appoint- ment and a purity of election in the Church. No cardinal under the age of thirty, not more than one of the Pope’s own blood, none without the rank of Doctor of Theology or Law, were to be elected, and so forth. But, as soon as the tiara was on his head, he renounced them all as incon- sistent with the rights and liberties of St. Peter’s THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 75 chair. Engagements made by the man might always be broken by the Pope. “Of Innocents pontificate little need he said. He was the first Pope publicly to acknowledge his seven children and to call them sons and daughters. Avarice, venality, sloth, and the as- cendancy of base favorites made his reign loath- some, without the blaze and splendor of the scandals of his fiery predecessor. In corruption he advanced a step even beyond Sixtus, by estab- lishing a bank at Rome for the sale of pardons. Each sin had its price, which might be paid at the convenience of the criminal; 150 ducats of the tax were poured into the Papal coffers. “Alexander VI was a stronger and a firmer man than his immediate predecessors. ‘He com- bined, y says Guicciardini, ‘craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief/ His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions of Colonna and Orsi, which Sixtus had scotched, but which had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent, were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the Pope. All considera- tions of religion and morality were subordinated by him with strict impartiality to policy; and his policy he restrained to two objects—the advance- ment of his family and the consolidation of the temporal power. These were narrow aims for the ambition of a potentate who, with one stroke of his pen, pretended to confer the new-found world on Spain. Yet they taxed his whole strength and drove him to the perpetration of enormous crimes. * * * * “Like Sixtus, Alexander combined this deadness to the spirit and interests of Christianity with zeal for dogma. He never flinched in formal orthodoxy, and the measures which he took for THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL.7 6 riveting the chains of superstition on the people were calculated with the military firmness of a Napoleon. It was he who established the censor- ship of the press, by which printers were obliged, under pain of excommunication, to submit the books they issued to the control of the archbishops and their delegates. The Brief of June 1, 1501, which contains this order, may be reasonably said to have retarded civilization, at least in Italy and Spain. “Carnal sensuality was the besetting vice of this Pope throughout his life. This, together with his almost insane weakness for his children, whereby he became a slave to the terrible Cesare, caused all the crimes that he committed. At the same time, though sensual, he was not gluttonous. Boccaccio, the Ferrarese ambassador, remarks: The Pope eats only of one dish. It is, therefore, disagreeable to have to dine with him.’ In this respect he may be favorably contrasted with the Roman prelates of the age of Leo. His relations to Vannozza Catanei, the titular wife first of Georgia de Croce and then of Carlo Canale, and to Julia Farnese, surnamed La Bella, the titular wife of Orsino Orsini, were open and acknowl- edged.” Seventh Period. Leo X (1513-1521). Hadrian VI (1522-1523). Clement VII (1523-1534). Paul III (1534-1549). Julius III (1550-1555). Marcellus II (1555). Paul IV (1555-1559). Pius IV (1560-1565). Pius V (1565-1572). Gregory XIII (1572-1585). Sixtus V (1585-1590). Urban VII (1590). Gregory XIV (1590-1591). THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 77 Innocent IX (1591). Clement VIII (1592-1605). Leo XI (1605). Paul V (1605-1621). Gregory XV (1621-1623). Urban VIII (1623-1644). Innocent X (1644-1655). Alexander VII (1655-1667). Clement IX (1667-1669). Clement X (1670-1676). Innocent XI (1676-1689). Alexander VIII (1689-1691). Innocent XII (1691-1700). Clement XI (1700-1721). Innocent XIII (1721-1724). Benedict XIII (1724-1730). Clement XII (1730-1740). Benedict XIV (1740-1758). Clement XIII (1758-1769). The seventh period reveals the gradual shrink- ing of importance in the estimation of the world of the Papacy. Under Leo X the Reformation cut almost half the people of the Western Empire loose from the Papacy. The Council of Trent, in 1555-1563, defined the two irreconcilable positions of Catholics and Protestants. In 1580 a counter-reformation was .started and much of the lost fold was gained back by it. The Jesuits were organized in 1540 for the purpose of stemming the tide of Protestantism. The Pontificates of Pope Paul IV, who in 1558 repeated in his celebrated Bull “Cum ex apostola- tus officio” the extravagant claims of the historic Papacy, and of Pius V, who in his famous Bull “In coena domini” confirmed the solemn pro- nouncements of damnation against heretics and raised them to the status of an act of worship, go to show that much of the old energy of former days was left and busily astir. The Pontificates of Sixtus V, Clement VIII, and Urban VIII were devoted to the consolidating of the political standard and purposes of the Papacy. 78 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, granted, in defiance of the Papal demands of Innocent X, religious liberty to all Protestants in Germany. Eighth Period. Clement XIV (1769-1774). Pius VI (1775-1799). Pius VII (1800-1823). Leo XII (1823-1829). Pius VIII (1829-1830). Gregory XVI (1831-1846). Pius IX (1846-1878). Leo XIII (1878-1903). Pius X (1903-1914). Benedict XV (1914). Clement XIV, a Franciscan monk before his elevation, suppressed the Jesuit order in accord- ance with the demand of the Bourbon courts, by his Brief “Dominus ac Redemptor noster,” dated July 21, 1783. Pius VII restored the order by his Bull “Sollici- tudo omnium ecclesiarum. fy In 1872 Germany expelled the Jesuits from her borders; also such branch societies of the Jesuit order as existed. Pius IX became their friend in 1849, three years after his elevation to the Papal throne. He found that the Jesuits supported vigorously his two pet theories, the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the infallibility of the Pope. Pius IX also made Alphonse de Liguori a Doctor of the Church, thereby approv- ing of the morality as taught by him. Whoever attempts to attack the Jesuits today incurs the suspicion of being a bad Catholic and a good Protestant. The Jesuits are the theological spies of the Vatican. Whom the Jesuits wish to destroy, the Vatican damns. Pius X inaugurated a scheme of perfect intel- lectual slavery of the clergy, in an effort to ex- terminate liberal thinkers. SOURCES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTOC- RACY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The following statement dealing with the sources of the principle of autocracy of the Roman Catholic Church, and showing that they were derived from the pseudo-Isidorean decretals during the reign of Boniface I, is from the pen of the most distinguished Roman Catholic scholar of the last century, Professor Johan Joseph Ignaz Dollinger. Professor Dollinger was Professor ordinarius at the University of Munich, a celebrated church his- torian, identified as the author of the famous and epoch-making Janus letters which appeared in the “Allgemeine Zeitung” in March, 1869, for the con- tents of which he was required by Rome to ap- pear before the Council and was called upon to retract. Failing to do so, he was solemnly ex- communicated. He thus became virtually the head of the faction called Old Catholics, who still continue in their pastoral charges in some parts of Bavaria. The following quotation is from Professor Dol- linger’s great work entitled, “The Pope and the Council” : “Pope Niclas I (858-867) at Rome seized upon the Isidorean Decretals—about one hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, fabricated in the west of Gaul, for the purpose of establishing a historical basis for his personal infallibility as Roman Pontiff. “The immediate object of the forged decretals was to protect the simple bishops against the encroachments of Metropolitans and other would- be authorities, so as to secure absolute impunity 80 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. and the exclusion of. all influence of secular power. “This end was to be gained through such an immense extension of the Papal power that as these principles gradually penetrated the Church, and were followed out in their consequences, she necessarily assumed the form of an absolute monarchy, subjected to the arbitrary power of a single individual, and the foundation of the edi- fice of Papal infallibility was already laid: first, by the principle that the decrees of every Coun- cil require Papal confirmation; secondly, by the assertion that the fulness of power, even in mat- ters of faith, resides in the Pope alone, who is Bishop of the Universal Church, while the other bishops are his servants.' “Now if the Pope is really the Bishop of the whole Church, so that every other bishop is his servant, he, who is the sole and legitimate mouth of the Church, ought to be infallible. If the de- crees of Councils are invalid without Papal con- firmation, the divine attestation of a doctrine un- deniably rests in the last resort on the word of one man, and the notion of the absolute power of that one man over the whole Church includes that of his infallibility, as the shell contains the kernel. With perfect consistency, therefore, the pseudo-Isidore makes his early Pope say: The Roman Church remains to the end free from stain of heresy.” “THE DOUBLE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.” In a little work written in fine spirit by the gifted and scholarly Baroness von Zedtwitz, a vivid picture is given of the double doctrine of the Church of Rome, by this lady whose great liberality to the Church and religious enthusiasm apparently inspired the belief that she could be trusted with the esoteric as well as the exoteric teachings of Rome. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 81 The very close and intimate relation which the Baroness enjoyed with the high dignitaries of the Roman Church, no less than the lofty moral ideal- ism and consecrated devotion to truth which marks her writings, makes her work of value to lovers of truth and morality. In her volume* Baroness von Zedtwitz gives as a reason for writ- ing the book: “Owing to the extremely hostile attitude as- sumed by the Roman Church in this country, towards my decision, and its persistent effort to, at first, deny, and then belittle the sincerity of my renunciation of their system, I have found it necessary to resort to the only way of silencing the voices of those who persistently spread the report that I have never completely severed my connection with the Church of Rome.” Of her personal experience in her enthusiastic quest for work that would further the Church which she had always believed to be the embodi- ment of purity, directness and sincerity, she says: “But the Church politics had other uses for my co-operation than in the futile searching for Christ’s divine spirit within its body, and I was led imperceptibly to a deeper and truer knowledge of the essence of the Church which I had always believed ‘Holy.’ * * * The Church needed brave helpers, women and men, and to each the task was allotted according to the individual capacity. The Church blessed the methods em- ployed by those who really loved and served her; and all such would be considered not only permis- sible but laudable. f % “What then was to become of the moral code, if ecclesiastical and moral duty clashed? The first is lav/, the second habit, was the reply. The moral habit is helpful doubtless to primitive simple folk, but it is dead and lifeless in itself, and often crushes the spirit. No great work was *“The Double Doctrine of the Church of Rome,” by Baroness von Zedtwitz. New York, Fleming H. Revell Company . 82 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. ever done by narrow moralists; for with that rule of life, we neither grow nor accomplish. “This gave me the first clew to the double system within the Church of Rome; for the un- initiated, I knew, were wholly unaware of this distinction in teaching. The separation of morals from religion seemed to me such a highly import- ant indication in reaching the enlightenment I so much desired, that I followed it persistently and unremittingly, and it became therefore inevitable that I found myself at last an admitted member in Church politics, and at the source and heart of esoteric Catholicism. God’s glory and Christ’s teachings were then but the armor and shield to hide the real pretensions of the Vatican; and the Papacy, with all it promises, implies and tolerates, is the rallying word with which the faint-hearted Romanist is won back to service.” Here are some things which this fine thinker, who was too pure and noble to trail her morality in the mire of expediency for the glory of Rome, says of the teachings of the Church: “The Church of Rome as an organization has never tolerated individualism amongst its mem- bers. It at once affirms and denies the individual conscience, inasmuch as that conscience must ever be sought in the dogmas and direction of the Institution. “Now what are the teachings of the Institution? There are two distinct sets and headings. First: Those for the uninitiated, or the sheep. Second: Those for the initiated, or the shepherds. In other words, there is exoteric and esoteric Catholicism. “With the exoteric doctrines it linds means to defend itself against attack, and retreats always behind the bulwarks of Christian ethics. It pro- claims charity, sincerity, justice, altruism, pro- fesses from the pulpits the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and thus deludes its adversaries, who fall back disheartened, and abandon a systematic attack. “Members of the Roman communion who are the cause of recurring scandals, are declared lamentable exceptions to the universal virtuous THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 83 living of the priesthood; they are acknowledged as the stray sheep, whom the ever-loving ‘Mother Church , would fain recover. % * ^ ^ “When in the seventeenth century the immortal Pascal in his ‘Provinciates’ brought consternation to the Christian world by his exposures of the moral code of the Jesuits, a blow was then dealt to that powerful engine of the Papacy, from which it has never fully recovered. * * * What was then conclusively proved against the moral teach- ing of the Jesuits, is essentially true of the whole Roman Church; were it not so, the Jesuits must then have disappeared as members of a Church which was bound, through such exposures, to re- pudiate them. The Papacy learned that it needed them for its support, as its whole system is com- mitted to the same principles. ^ ^ “Jesuitical casuistry is today, and has been since the Reformation, the powerful intellectual bond which holds the organization from disrup- tion. The disorders and excesses of the Papacy, in glaring contradiction to Christian doctrine, could not find justification under the teaching of the Church doctors; the Jesuits undertook to span the gulf, which was becoming wider, between Christianity and Catholicism ; and elaborated, through their Fathers, a new system of ethics to meet every emergency, and which in its completev ness and conciliatory spirit, justifies the outrages committed against the accepted moral code, by the Church of Rome.” The Baroness quotes great Jesuit authors to prove her position, and finally, after quoting Cellot, who observes that “too great severity should not be applied to the clergy as there never can be too many priests,” she continues: “This is confirmed by St. Alphonsus Liguori who, though not a Jesuit, is generally accepted in the Church of Rome as the great Master of Moral Theology. In his work entitled ‘Dignity and Duty of a Priest,’ translated by the Redemp- 84 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. torist Fathers in 1889, published in America, Lon- don and Dublin, and printed by ‘the printers of the Apostolic See/ Liguori says: ‘The priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of Paradise, and of changing them from slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon, or to pardon, according as they (the priests) refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.’ * * * * * * ‘‘The standard of veracity in the Church of Rome differs seriously from that used by moral- ists in general. The principal and most influential guide upon questions of morals, in the Roman Catholic Church, is always Alphonsus de Liguori, who is not only a saint of the Church (since 1836) and declared by the fact of his canonization to be perfectly sound in all his doctrine, but is also a ‘doctor’ of the same Church (since 1871), which means that he is one whose teaching deserves to be accepted and followed by every one. His work on Moral Theology is accordingly the standard now in use, and the others currently employed adopt its principles. Here is what he lays down on the subject of speaking the truth: Every kind of equivocation or quibbling which just comes short of direct lying, but is intended to deceive the hearer, and does in fact deceive him, is al- ways lawful for ‘a just cause.’ An example of each kind will help to make the matter plainer. A man asked if a particular thing be true, which he knows to be true, but does not wish to admit, may lawfully reply: ‘I say, No,’ meaning there- by only, ‘I utter the word, No,’ and not, ‘I de- clare that the thing did not happen.’ A witness, asked if a prisoner has committed a certain crime, is allowed to deny it, if the act be one which he himself does not think criminal; and if the crime be a hidden one, so that no one knows the facts except the criminal and the witness, the latter is not only allowed but bound to say that THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 85 the accused did not commit it. These are actual cases put by Liguori himself (Theol. Mor., Iv, 151-167) and are a fair sample of scores of others.” THE SPANISH INQUISITION. Authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, Pope Sixtus IV authorized the establishment of the Inquisition in Spain. This re-establishment of the Inquisition proved to be the inauguration of an era of wanton persecution, indescribable torture and wholesale slaughter of human beings which probably has no parallel in the pages of history, either savage or civilized. It was in Spain and elsewhere, under the auspices of the Holy Inquisition and under the claim of advancing the interests of the Church of Christ, that human ingenuity invented and brought into play almost every conceivable instru- ment and method of torture. An Authoritative English Historian on the Spanish Inquisition. The following characterization of the Spanish Inquisition is taken from the pages of the emi- nent English author and historian, John Adding- ton Symonds:* “The Inquisition was established in Spain in 1478 for the extermination of Jews, Moors and *See “Short History of the Renaissance in Italy,” pp. 62-63. Also “History of the Renaissance in Italy,” Part I, “The Age of Despots.” S6 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Christians with a taint of heresy. During the next four years two thousand victims were burned in the Province of Castile. In Seville a plot of ground called the Quemadero or place of burning —a new Aceldama—was set apart for executions; and here in one year two hundred and eighty heretics were committed to the flames, whilt* seventy-nine were condemned to perpetual im- prisonment and seventeen thousand to lighter punishments of various kinds. In Andalusia alone five thousand houses were at once abandoned by their inhabitants. Then followed, in 1492, the celebrated edict against the Jews. Before four months had expired, the whole Jewish population were bidden to leave Spain, carrying with them nothing in the shape of gold or silver. Vainly did the persecuted race endeavor to purchase a remission of the sentence by the payment of an exorbitant ransom. Torquemada appeared before Ferdinand and his consort, raising the crucifix, and crying, ‘Judas sold Christ for thirty pieces of silver; sell ye Him for a larger sum, and ac- count for the same to God!’ “The exodus began. Eight thousand Jews left Spain—some for the coast of Africa, where the Arabs ripped their bodies up in search for gems or gold they might have swallowed, and de- flowered their women; some for Portugal, where they bought the right to exist for a large head- tax, and where they saw their sons and daugh- ters dragged away to baptism before their eyes. Others were sold as slaves, or had to satisfy the rapacity of their persecutors with the bodies of their children. Many flung themselves into the wells, and sought to bury despair in suicide. The Mediterranean was covered with famine-stricken and plague-breeding fleets of exiles. Putting into the port of Genoa, they were refused leave to reside in the city, and died by hundreds in the harbor. Their festering bodies bred a pestilence along the whole Italian seaboard, of which at Naples alone twenty thousand persons died. Flit- ting from shore to shore, these forlorn spectres, THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 87 the victims of bigotry and avarice, everywhere pillaged and everywhere rejected, dwindled away and disappeared. Meanwhile the orthodox re- joiced.” “Thus Spain began to devour and depopulate herself. The curse which fell upon the Jew and Moor descended next upon philosopher and pa- triot. The very life of the nation, in its commerce, its industry, its free thought, its energy of char- acter, was deliberately and steadily throttled.” The Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. The Catholic Encyclopedia is one of the most monumental and scholarly works by great Jesuit and other authoritative writers of the Catholic Church. It affords one of the best examples of present-day proficiency in casuistry of which we have any knowledge; yet its explanations and at- tempted justification of the Inquisition, if in- genius, are nevertheless quite astounding, as has been pointed out by the Rev. J. A. Phillips, the scholarly author of “Roman Catholicism Analyzed.” The following extract is from the Catholic En- cyclopedia and gives the historic facts as pre- sented by the greatest Roman Catholic authori- ties: “Inquisition (Latin, inqnirere, to look into) . By this term is usually meant a special ecclesiastical institution for combatting or suppressing heresy. Its characteristic mark seems to be the bestowal on special judges of judicial powers in matters of faith, and this by supreme ecclesiastical authority, not temporal or for individual cases, but as a universal and permanent office. Moderns ex- perience difficulty in understanding this institu- tion, because they have, to no small extent, lost sight of two facts. On the one hand they have ceased to grasp religious belief as something ob- jective, as the gift of God, and therefore outside the realm of free private judgment; on the other 88 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. they no longer see in the Church a society perfect and sovereign, based substantially on a pure authentic revelation whose first and most import- ant duty must naturally be to retain unsullied this original deposit of faith. Before the religious revolution of the sixteenth century these views were still common to all Christians; that ortho- doxy should be maintained at any cost seemed self-evident. However, while the positive sup- pression of heresy by ecclesiastical and civil auth- ority in Christian society is as old as the Church, the Inquisition as a distinct ecclesiastical tribunal is of much later origin.” (Page 26.) “The Pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who. executed their doctrinal functions in the name of the Pope. * * * “That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as inquisitors, with- drew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i. e., from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So lit- tle did he think of displacing episcopal authority that, on the contrary, he provided explicitly that no inquisitional tribunal was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishop’s co-operation. * * * As early as 1254, Innocent IV prohibited anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the episcopal consent. Similar orders were issued by Urban IV in 1262, Clement IV in 1265, and Gregory X in 1273, until at last Boni- face VIII and Clement V solemnly declared null and void all judgments issued in trials concern- ing faith unless delivered with the approval and co-operation of the bishops. The Popes always upheld with earnestness the episcopal authority, and sought to free the inquisitional tribunals from every kind of arbitrariness and caprice. “It was a heavy burden of responsibility—al- most too heavy for a common mortal—which fell upon the shoulders of an inquisitor, who was obliged, at least indirectly, to decide between life THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 89 and death. The Church was bound to insist that he possess, in a pre-eminent degree, the qualities of a good judge, that he should be animated with a glowing zeal for the Faith, the salvation of souls, and the extirpation of heresy. * * * Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character, and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. * * *” (page 30.) “Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiasti- cal courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being un- authorized until twenty years after the Inquisi- tion had begun. It was first authorized by Inno- cent IV in his Bull, ‘Ad extirpanaa’ of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Ciement IV on 3 No- vember, 1265.” (page 32.) “In the Bull lAd extirpomda ’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once and shall within five days at the most execute the laws made against them/ * * * Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions ‘Commissis nobis’ and ‘Inconsuti- bilem lunicam’ The aforesaid Bull (Ad extir- panda 9 remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or rein- forced by several popes. Alexander IV (1254- 61), Clement IV (1265-68), Niclas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication, to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenient heretics 90 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. to the stake. It is to be noticed that excommuni- cation itself was no trifle, for, if the person ex- communicated did not free himself from excom- munication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and in- curred all the penalties that affected heresy.” (page 32.) A Distinguished Protestant Scholar Comments on the Position Taken in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Rev. J. A. Phillips, whose justly popular work “Roman Catholicism Analyzed”* is marked by fine scholarship, broad vision and fair and judicial treatment of the subject, thus comments upon the attempted explanations and justifications of the Inquisition as given by the authors of the Catho- lic Encyclopedia in the article on “Heresy.” “The Catholic Encyclopedia contends that per- secution seemed right and was right in that age (the Dark Ages) when the standard of morals and purity was high! This is asserted gravely and not as a joke. In the same article, ‘Heresy/ it is held that the cruelties of the Inquisition are not practiced now because of the degenerate state of faith and morals which prevails, but that heresy is more malignant than treason, and that the cruelties of the Inquisition were not shocking to the people of that age. That is to say, the only way to prevent a return of the glories of the Inquisition is to remain in a low state of grace and morals, such as we now experience! If the religious life of mankind should ever improve un- til the awfulness of heresy is as fairly realized as it was by the Inquisitors, Rome’s rebellious children and step-children (Jews, etc.) will again be treated to the rack and the dungeon.” “Roman Catholicism Analyzed,” by J. A. Phillips. New York, Fleming- H. Revell Company. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 91 A Former Professor of Moral Theology in the Paulist House of Studies on the Inquisition. We close consideration of this subject with an extract from the writings of a ripe scholar whose long training in leading Catholic higher educa- tional institutions and his experience as teacher in the House of Studies of the Paylist Fathers give special interest to his citations. Who the Author Is. Rev. William L. Sullivan was for ten years in the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. After receiving four years of college training in the well-known Jesuit educational institution, Bos- ton College, he entered St. John’s Ecclesiastical Seminary at Brighton, Massachusetts, where he remained for three years, going from there to the Paulist House of Studies affiliated with the Catholic University of Washington, D. C. where he spent three more years of study and obtained the Licentiate of Theology from the Catholic Uni- versity. After a period of active mission work, he was recalled to the Paulist House of Studies, to be Professor of Moral Theology, a branch which he taught for six years. During this period he also taught scripture, and it was his studies then which led him to accept the modernist view and which ultimately resulted in the collapse of his belief in Roman dogmas. * * * * * * “I will set down a brief summary of facts lead- ing up to and concerning this institution, designed, one would say, in Hell, did one not know that its inventors were Popes. “A. D. 1157—The Council of Rheims orders branding in the face for heretics.****** “1197—The burning of heretics first made posi- tive law by Pedro II of Aragon.****** “1224—Frederic II, going a step further, pro- mulgates in Lombardy a law that heretics should 92 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. be burned, or should, at least, have their tongues cut out. “1230—This law, inscribed in the Papal regis- ters by Gregory IX, whose chief agent in enforc- ing it was Guala, the Dominican Bishop of Brescia. “1231—Frederic II takes final step, in his famous Sicilian constitution, of absolutely de- creeing death by fire for heretics. Shortly after- ward the Emperor applied this Sicilian law to the whole Empire. * * * “1252—Innocent IV’s bull, commanding under threat of excommunication that temporal rulers should enforce all penalties against heretics with- in five days from their conviction as such. This bull he ordered inserted in the Imperial Statutes for Italy. ‘1254—Innocent IV issues a bull incorporating the most bloody laws of Emperor Frederic II. “Inasmuch as this celebrated constitution of Innocent IV, the Ad extirpanda, as it is best known, became classic in inquisitorial procedure it will be useful to set forth its leading enact- ments. It is addressed to all the rulers of Italy, and provides: 1st, that any one may seize a heretic, and despoil him of his property; 2nd, that every magistrate shall appoint an inquisitorial commission, whose salaries are to be paid by the State; 3rd, that no law may be passed inter- fering with these Inquisitors; 4th, that heretics who will not confess their heresy shall be tortured; 5th. that the houses of heretics shall be demolished; 6th, that the confiscated property of heretics shall be thus divided, one-third to the inquisitors and the bishops, one-third to the city, and one-third to those who aided in the arrest and conviction. * * * * * * “1265—Pope Clement IV re-promulgates the Ad extirpanda; Nicholas IV does likewise a quarter-century later. “1259—Alexander IV reissues the Ad extir- panda. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 93 “1265—Urban IV makes universal the excom- munication of civil authorities who impede or delay the operation of the Inquisition. This is incorporated in the Church’s Canon Law. Maeris- trates who fail to execute the sentence of the Inquisition are not only excommunicated, but if their negligence continue for a year, they are to be themselves proceeded against for the capital crime of heresy. * * * * * * “1335—Pope Benedict XII writes to Edward III of England, complaining of the fact that the ‘use- ful and holy Inquisition’ was not yet established in the English realm, and urging the king to give the assistance of the secular power to the bishop of Ossory, a Franciscan monster who had already caused some heretics to be burned. In 1401 Eng- land established burning as the penalty for heresy. “At first the carrying out of the Papal laws against heresy was committed to the bishops, the jure divino rulers of the Church. Thus the Coun- cil of Narbonne, in 1227, ordered bishops to have in every parish of their jurisdiction agents for the hunting down of heretics. But the bishops, showing too little of the spirit of murderers, dis- pleased highly the ‘Holy’ See. What the Papacy required was a corps of janissaries, a band of fanatics who would make torture and homicide the subject of their study and the business of their life. Such an organization was ready at hand in the Dominican and Franciscan orders. These, under Pope Gregory IX, entered upon their career as Inquisitors, armed with such authority from the Papacy as made bishops, by comparison, quite insignificant persons. * * * “Armed with the amplest powers which the Papacy has ever delegated to its agents, the Dominicans and Franciscans swarmed over Eu- rope, setting up the Inquisition everywhere, and everywhere leaving in their track terror, pillage, delation, torture, woe and death. Over Europe, j did I say? Yes, and beyond Europe to the very frontiers of Christianity.” 94 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Some Instruments of Torture Used by the Inquisition. Some of the great museums of the Old World contain objects that are deeply suggestive to the student of history and which hold a horrible fas- cination for morbid minds. These are the instru- ments of torture employed by the Inquisition dur- ing that long, dark and tragic night when the Roman Catholic Church was supreme in religion and education, and not infrequently far more powerful in State than emperor, king, lord or baron. The most common methods of torture were fire, the rack, and pulleys; but punishment by these methods apparently became monotonous, s6 the ingenuity of man was taxed to invent instruments and provide new means for varying the cruelty sanctioned by the Catholic Church in her effort to stamp out heresy. Among these were stretch- ing the victims on benches, or perpendicularly, and flaying them alive, hanging them by the thumbs with heavy weights attached to the feet. One instrument of torture was a wheel so con- structed as to revolve over a fire, so that the victim could be slowly roasted. The Iron Virgin was a huge cast filled with sharp spikes and fit- ted with hinges. On receiving the victim the cast was closed around him so the spikes pierced the body in various places. One rack was called the Spiked Hare, being fitted with spikes which pierced the victim as he was stretched upon it. A metal mask, to be heated red-hot, contained tunnels for the ears in which melted lead was poured. There were pincers for removing the tongues of heretics; crowns that were used red- hot; the thumb-screws; the breaking wheel, the leg crusher, the iron boot for torturing the feet; the knobby crown for inflicting terrible suffer- ing on the head of the victim, and the Spanish collar filled with sharp spikes. This record by no means exhausts the methods and instruments of torture, but it will serve to show how, when THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 95 once autocratic power is given, even to a church which claims to be the infallible representative of divine truth, not only freedom of thought, speech and press are outlawed, but the most cruel and fiendish devices are liable to be employed in the effort to stamp out heresy. It is also inter- esting to remember that Pius X sent his Papal benediction to the monk Lepecier, author of “De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis,” who stoutly defended the killing of heretics. It is not the men, not the age, not the environ- J ment, but the^ system—the dogma of infallibility I and the 'claim - that'the Church has the right to ! exercise temporal power, that is chiefly respon- j sible for the crimes of Catholics, both past and present. THE JESUITS. The Jesuit order, or Society of Jesus, was founded by Ignatius de Loyola, a Spanish sol- dier-priest, in 1534, and approved by Pope Paul IV in 1540. It is a mobile Catholic body, in many respects entirely unlike the orders or resi- dent bodies of the Catholic Church. “Jesuit polity is,” says R. F. Littledale, LL. D., D. C. L., in his scholarly and eminently fair treatment of the subject in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, “almost a pure des- potism, guarded, no doubt, with certain checks, but even those of an oligarchical kind. The gen- eral is indeed elected by the congregation of the society, but once appointed, it is for life.” He is supreme in power, being subject only to the Pope, and is frequently termed the “Black Pope.” He has heretofore had five assistants, but in No- vember, 1915, the press announced the fact that the United States had been made the sixth “as- sistancy” and that Rev. Thomas Cannon had been made first American assistant. The Jesuits are expected to mingle with all classes of society, go wherever ordered and work untiringly for the advancement of the object in 96 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. hand. Subtle casuistry and intrigue, crafty and pernicious meddling with government and so- ciety in an offensive manner, have marked Jes- uitism rather than the wholesale slaughter of human beings, such as characterized the Domini- cans, who were the dominant influence in the at- tempt of the Catholics to stamp out heretics and non-Catholics through the Inquisition. Yet the Jesuits were not entirely innocent of the crimes of the Inquisition. “The merited odium,” observes Dr. Littledale, “that has overtaken the Inquisition, usually of- ficered by Dominicans, has induced the Jesuits, whose own controversial method has been for the most part different, to disclaim all connec- tion with that tribunal and to represent their society as free from complicitv in its acts; but in truth it was Ignatius de Loyola himself who pro- cured its erection in Portugal in 1545 and 1546, and F. Nethard, one of the very few cardinals of the society, was Inquisitor-General in 1655.” The searching exposure of the lax casuistry of the Jesuits by Pascal has been eloquently and convincingly emphasized in the modern standard text-books written by the great Jesuit, F. Gury. “No Jesuit writing can be published without special license from the General, after careful scrutiny and review.” The substitution of external authority for the voice of conscience, mental reservation, and the justification of means by ends are Jesuitical max- ims that have been defended by the most adroit and subtle casuistry; but their fundamental weakness lies in their running counter to sound morality and the enlightened thought of advanc- ing civilization. “Jesuitical casuistry is today and. has been since the Reformation the powerful intellectual bond which holds the organization from destruc- tion,” observes the Baroness von Zedtwitz. “Jes- uitism,” continues this author, “is but esoteric Catholicism made tangible.” THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 97 The Jesuits have an evil practice of meddling in governments and society, and so obnoxious did they make themselves even in Catholic govern- ments, that they were expelled from such Church- ruled lands as Spain, Portugal and France, be- fore the year 1773, when the order was sup- pressed by the Pope. The lust for dominion and passion for power which comes from belief in the Pope and Council as the reservoir of infallible truth was, however, so strong in the Papacy, and an organization like the Jesuits was so valuable for the maintenance of the assumptions of the hierarchy, that it could not afford to continue an attitude of hostility, and in 1814 the order was re-established. After the suppression of the order by the Pope, the Jesuits continued to exist as individuals in Catholic lands, and in such non-Catholic coun- tries as Russia and Prussia they were permitted to retain their organization. In time, however, they made themselves so obnoxious by reason of their continued crafty intrigue and offensive meddling in government that they were driven from various lands, both Protestant and Catholic alike. Thus, for example, Holland banished them in 1816; Russia in 1820; Portugal in 1834; Spain in 1835; Switzerland in 1847-1848; Germany in 1872; France in 1880. The first society established in the United States was in 1807. The present head of the Jesuits; or Black Pope, is Father Ledochowski. He succeeded Father Francis X. Wernz, who died August 20, 1914. THE INDEX. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum is a cata- logue of books which the Roman Catholic Church forbids its people to read, as being contrary to faith or morals. 9S THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The Index Expurgatorius is a catalogue of books which may be read only in expurgated editions—that is, after the Congregation of the Index, composed of Cardinals and other church scholars, under the sanction of the Pope, has eliminated the passages held to be contrary to faith or morals. Some Historical Facts About the Index Expurga- torius. The following, from “Letters to His Holiness Pope Pius X,” by A Modernist,* is valuable as showing how the Index Expurgatorius of the Ro- man Catholic Church has vainly tried to bar the path of progress by forbidding, as far as the officials of the Church could prohibit, the dissem- * ination of great scientific truths which have long since been accepted by the whole civilized world as incontestible facts. A church so fallible as to condemn as false the truths of the Copernican theory, necessarily becomes a dead weight on ad- vancing civilization when it undertakes to say what men may read, think or promulgate. “The Index and the Inquisition are the Roman Congregations which execute the Pope’s condem- natory decisions. The Inquisition is that tribu- nal which passed the edict on the 24th of Feb- ruary, 1616, that it was formal heresy (senten- tiam formaliter haereticam) to maintain that the sun is immovable and that the earth goes round it; and that it was theologically erroneous and philosophically absurd to hold that the earth had a daily rotation on its axis. On the 22nd of June, 1633, there came another decree from the Inquisition condemning Galileo, and reiterating a condemnation of 1616 against Copernicus, and adding: 4And in order to suppress teachings so See “Letters to His Holiness Pope Piux X,” by A Modernist. Chicago and London, The Open Court Pub- lishing Company. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 91 deadly, and to make it impossible for them to spread further, to the grave detriment of Catho- lic truth, a decree is issued by the holy Congre- gation of the Index according to which the books which contain these teachings [the Copemican astronomy] are forbidden, and these teachings themselves are declared to be false and utterly opposed to the holy and divine Scriptures.’ Gali- leo at the age of seventy appeared before the Inquisition in full session, retracted and renounced the conclusions of his life-long study, and re- ceived as a penance for the crime of founding modern astronomy, the seven penitential psalms, to be said once a week for three years. On the 5th of March, 1616, the Index condemned Coper- nicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium , and a letter of the Carmelite Foscarini which upheld the Copernican astronomy. The Index, on the 10th of May, 1619, prohibited Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiae Copernicae , and later editions of the Index added the words: ‘condemned also are all books teaching the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.’ Foscarini, we may note, was put in prison by Cardinal Caraffa, Arch- bishop of Naples. In 1757 the prohibition of ‘all books teaching the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun’ was repealed. But only in 1822 was it decided by the Inquisition that books might be printed in Rome which taught these two propositions. Two years before, the Master of the Sacred Palace had refused the ‘im- primatur’ to the ‘Elements of Optics and Astron- omy,’ written by a professor of the Sapienza, Guiseppe Settele, because the book taught that the Copernican astronomy was demonstrated. When the book did appear, it contained a note by the theological censors, which thus speaks of modern astronomy: ‘A system which seems to contradict the literal sense of Holy Scripture, and which, moreover, has not only no substan- tial proofs in its favor but involves gross er- rors, can be maintained by no Catholic who holds to the rule that we may not depart from the 100 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. literal sense of Scripture unless we see clearly that such literal sense would lead to absurdity. The condemnation of this system is also based on its philosophical absurdities, etc.’ Finally, in 1835, the Index struck from its list the condemnation of Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Galileo. It is decidedly unfortunate that Rome lifts its anathema from the conclusions of scholarship only when the rest of mankind has been follow- ing them for two hundred years.” THE GUNPOWDER PLOT, 1605. The Gunpowder Plot was led by Catesby, an English Catholic zealot who had taken part in the rising of Essex. Later Catesby had planned and plotted a Catholic revolt to occur on the death of Elizabeth. He sought the aid of Spain and later in Flanders found congenial spirits. One Guido Fawkes entered with spirit into Cates- by’s fiendish plan, which materialized after James disappointed the hopes and expectations of the Catholics. The plan was to eliminate at one fell stroke the King and his sons, together with the Lords and Commons, by blowing up the Houses of Par- liament when all were assembled to hear the ad- dress from the throne. With the King and Par- liament eliminated, the conspirators believed the nation would be so terrorized that the Catholics could easily become masters of the situation. Thirty-six barrels of gunpowder were secreted under the part of the Parliament House where the victims were to assemble. Although a great number of Catholics were cognizant of the plot, the secret was so well kept that everything moved favorably until November 4th, the night before the Houses were to assemble. Then a warning was sent by one of the conspirators to a relative who belonged to Parliament. This led to an investigation. Guido Fawkes was discov- ered in the cellar preparing slow matches for the THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 101 explosion on the morrow. Swift punishment was meted out to many of the leading conspirators. Among those executed was Garnet, the Provin- cial of the English Jesuits. He protested that he had no active part in the plot, .but admitted that through another Jesuit named Greenway he had been let into the secret, but though possessed of the guilty knowledge remained silent. SOME TYPICAL VICTIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC THEORY AND SYSTEM. Not men, not the savage age or environment, can explain or justify the appalling record of cruelty and murder that darkens the history of the Roman Catholic Church through the period when she was able to exercise as well as claim the right to wield temporal power and to ban freedom of thought or the exercise of reason. The men and the age were at best merely con- tributing factors. The root cause, the master reason, is found in the false theory—that arro- gation of infallibility, that insists that the Catho- lic Church in council, consisting of a congrega- tion of fallible men swayed by fanatical zeal, passion, prejudice and baser motives, becomes the voice of God, infallible and irreformable, or that one man, a fallible man, when he becomes the head of the Church and speaks ex cathedra , speaks as God’s vicegerent and his words are in- fallible and irreformable. Herein lies the menace—the deadly menace, to nation and freedom, of any church holding such views; for such assumptions make those who hold them intolerant and ready to go to any ex- treme which the infallible source of authority re- quires in furtherance of their ends. Rome postulates certain things and holds reso- lutely to them : First, she represents God on earth; she is the custodian of truth; truth is in- tolerant of error. In the presence of these hy- potheses there can be no freedom, no growth, no 102 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. exercise of reason that conflicts with the domi- nant ideas of the Church; it matters not whether it be a Bruno insisting that there are more worlds than ours, a Galileo proving that the earth moves «around the sun, a Ferrer seeking to scatter the light of science and twentieth cen- tury humanitarianism throughout Spain. Death or imprisonment are decreed because these light- bearers of progress proclaim truths contrary to the assumed infallible truth of the Church. Even church councils, the most complete em- bodiment, according to the Roman Catholic theory, of the expression of divine truth, out- rage the present-day concepts of civilization, Christianity and humanism, as when, for exam- ple, at the Council of Constance, the safe-con- duct granted by Pope and Emperor to the great educator and divine, John Huss, was violated and the reformer condemned to death by the flames. We are constantly told that the Catholic Church is the same today as yesterday. It is one of the boasts of the Church that it does not change; and it is important that intelligent citizens of a free State be acquainted with the legitimate fruits of this system, wherever it has had the power that it claims to be its right, in State and over the individual. Below we give a few of the long list of saints, savants and philosophers who have been made martyrs by the Church of Rome or whose ashes have been violated through her implacable hate. William Salter, first martyr at the stake in England, was condemned under the heretic en- actment of 1401, which gave the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church the power to imprison all writers, teachers and preachers of heresy; and on refusal to abjure, under the provisions of this law the bishops were to turn the victims over to the civil authorities to be burned. John Wycliffe (1324( ? )-1385). Though not slain by the Roman Catholic Church, it wreaked its vengeance by digging into his grave for his THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 103 remains and burning them. (See sketch of Wy- cliffe.) John Huss (1373-1415). (See sketch of Huss.) Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham (1365 (?)- 1416). English reformer. Burned at stake. Jerome of Prague (1365-1416). Bohemian Hussite, burned for heresy. Savonarola (1452-1498). See sketch. Hugh Latimer (1490-1555). See sketch. Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555). English bishop, reformer and martyr. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556). English re- former, Archbishop of Canterbury; burned at the stake in reign of Mary I. Gaspard de Coligny (1517-1572). Great Hu- guenot leader. Killed in Massacre of St. Bar- tholomew. Giordana Bruno (1549( ? )-1600). See sketch. Galileo (1564-1642). Astronomer, physicist, in- ventor of astronomical telescope; supported Co- pernican system; condemned by Inquisition and imprisoned; escaped martyr’s death by abjuring. SOME EXAMPLES OF THE WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN LIFE. The Albigenses. The Albigenses were a Christian sect which arose in the eleventh century and flourished un- til exterminated by Rome. Its members re- garded marriage as sinful, rejected sacraments and the autocratic authority of the Church. They lived pure, austere lives and sought to fol- low implicitly what they conceived to be the teachings of the Scriptures. They were a peace- ful, prosperous and tolerant people. Even at a time when the Christian world showed little but 104 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. hate and aversion for the Jews, the Albigenses were kind and tolerant to them. Their persecu- tion by Rome began under Innocent III, in the early part of the thirteenth century, and is vivid- ly described by Draper in his “Intellectual De- velopment of Europe.” They afford an appalling illustration of the dehumanizing influence of a religion that holds to the idea of churchly infal- libility and the right to use force in the enforce- ment of religious dogmas. The engine of de- struction set in motion for the extermination of the Albigenses was the Papal Legantine Inqui- sition, under Dominic himself. The determination of the Roman Catholic Church to destroy this heresy root and branch, led to the destruction of unknown multitudes of men, women and children during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In many places prosper- ous, happy and populous communities were ut- terly wiped out. Draper declares (“Intellectual Development of Europe,” vol. II, page 14) that “six hundred years have elapsed since these events, and the south of France has never re- covered from the blow.” In the town of Beziers, in July, 1209, when Abbot Arnold was asked how the heretics could be distinguished from the faithful, when the massacre was about to begin, he made the in- human but laconic reply: “Slay all. God will know His Own.” When Beziers, which contained twenty thousand souls, was taken, fifteen thou- sand men, women and children were slaughtered. The Waldenses. The Waldenses were so called from their leader, a rich citizen of Lyons, who about 1170 gave away his property and founded a society for preaching among the people. They called them- selves the Poor Men of Lyons and were really a lay brotherhood. They were placed under the ban by the Church in 1184. The sect, however, rapidly spread in southern France, eastern Spain, THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 105 southern Germany, northern Italy, and even in the Netherlands and England. On every hand they were cruelly persecuted, and at length, by Papal decree, an exterminating crusade was organized during which, according to Kurtz’s Church History (vol. II, 133-134), 18,000 persons were put to death. In 1685, at the instigation of Louis XIV, persecutions were again rife in Savoy. Samuel Morland, who was the English ambassa- dor to Savoy at that time, wrote the story of what he witnessed of the torture suffered by men, women, children and babies at the hands of the Catholic persecutors. It constitutes one of the most hideous stories of cruelty and moral degeneracy to be found in the literature deal- ing with man’s inhumanity to man. The Lollards. The Lollards were followers of John Wycliffe. They became an important body in England dur- ing the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. On Continental Europe Loilardry also took root. It was the pure and noble teaching of John Wy- cliffe that won over John Huss, a director in the University of Prague, and other men of lofty life and true spirituality. The Lollards were often called Bible Men. They advocated the use of the vernacular in church services, opposed Papal hierarchical au- thority, discountenanced pilgrimages to Rome and to shrines, objected to images in church, and discouraged religious orders. In short, they be- lieved in the study of the Bible, the living of a pure and upright life as taught by Christ and the Early Church, and fought against the pagan- izing and externalizing of Christianity. Their teaching naturally alarmed and aroused the hatred of those who were seeking temporal power and riches, and soon the Church put in mo- tion her engines of persecution and death. The 106 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Lollards were hunted and hounded until finally they were practically exterminated. One of the first and greatest of the Lollards to suffer fiery death at the hands of implacable Eome was Sir John Oldcastle (Lord Cobham). On account of old friendship the King of Eng- land sought vainly to save the knight. He was burned in London in 1447. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew. The rapid growth of the Huguenots in France had given great alarm to Rome, to Phillip of Spain and to the Catholic party in France, which had been somewhat intensified by the marriage of Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot, to Margaret of Valois, sister of the King of France. The gathering of the Huguenots to Paris to attend the nuptials afforded the opportunity long de- sired by the Catholic party, to inaugurate a wholesale massacre. One of the first to fall was the great Admiral Coligny, one of the noblest and purest men, whose life and achievements light up the pages of French history. An at- tempt was made to assassinate him after leaving the royal palace, a short time before the mas- sacre of St. Bartholomew, and on the fateful even- ing, when he heard the minions of Rome pound- ing at his door, he exclaimed to a friend, “God is calling us. I have long been ready to die.” In a few moments his dead body was hurled into the street and the riot of murder began. Not only Paris, but the various provinces of France were the scenes of massacre. The exact number of the slain will never be known. It has been reckoned at between thirty thousand and one hundred thousand, several authorities plac- ing the number at seventy thousand. The Pope celebrated the event of St. Bartholomew’s Day by a grand Te Deum at the Church of St. Louis and the proclamation of a year of jubilee. Med- als were also struck in honor of the event. It is stated that Phillip II of Spain laughed when he THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 107 heard the news of the massacre, for the first and only time in his life. The date of the massacre was August 24-25, 1572. SOME GREAT HISTORIC CHARACTERS WHO WERE OBJECTS OF ROME’S HATRED. John Wycliffe. John Wycliffe, one of the greatest divines of Christian history, was the first scholar to trans- late (with assistance) the entire Bible into Eng- lish. He was probably born in 1324, and died in 1384. Wycliffe sought to preach the pure re- ligion of the Early Church. He opposed sending vast sums of money annually to Rome to min- ister to the pomp and externalism of a church that was more and more seeking worldly su- premacy. He opposed the great religious orders that were accumulating vast wealth and failing to go forth and minister to the spiritual needs of the people. He fought the crass spirit of paganism and growing externalism of the Catho- lic Church, and with the Bible in the vernacular was able to rekindle the dying spirituality in tens of thousands of hearts. He has been called the Morning Star of the Protestant Reformation. He died before Rome was able to destroy him, but her implacable hate was too great to let his bones lie in peace. Thirty years after his death, the Council of Constance, of evil memory, issued a decree that his remains should be disinterred and burned. John Huss. John Huss (1373-1415), one of the most learned divines of Bohemia and director in the University of Prague, embraced the teachings of Wycliffe. A 108 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. He was a man of exceptional ability, of austere morality and noble spiritual idealism, who ac- companied his brave teachings of the ethics of the New Testament with bold denunciations of the sins of the priests, the bishops and nuns for dishonoring their vows. He was finally sum- moned to appear before the Council of Constance, and being promised safe conduct by the Emperor and the Pope, both coming and going, he re- paired to the Council, where he was arrested, tried for heresy, condemned and burned. When dying Huss said: “It is thus you silence the goose (the name Huss is from the Bohemian word meaning a goose), but a hundred . years hence there shall arise a swan whose singing you shall not be able to silence.” In about one hundred years Martin Luther in- augurated the Protestant Reformation, which pre- pared the way for modern democracy and that advance in general enlightenment, in science and the humanities which has marked every land in proportion as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, press and assembly have been conserved. Savonarola. Girolamo Savonarola was born in Ferrara, Italy, in 1452. He early determined to become a preaching monk, in the hope that he might aid in stemming the tide of licentiousness of the age. Like Wycliffe, Huss and Jerome he became one of the heralds and precursors of the great Prot- estant Reformation. When as a young man he entered Florence as an obscure monk, Lorenzo di Medici was at the height of his power. Florence was then one of the greatest centers of art and letters in Europe, but it was also given over to frivolity, licentiousness and corrupt practices. The Church here, as in Rome, had fallen under the spell of corruption. In one of his Lenten sermons, preached in 1497, Savonarola boldly de- clared that “the priests were slaying the souls of THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 109 their flocks by their wicked example. “Their worship is,” he added, “to spend the nights with strumpets, and their days in singing in the choir. The altar is their shop.” Savonarola beheld with horror the profligacy on every hand. His austere morality and bold denunciation of the licentiousness within the Church gave great offense to the Papal Court at Rome and led to his execution. His ashes were thrown into the Arno, but his life and teachings proved an in- spiration for the men of conscience and lofty spirituality who were soon to electrify Europe north of the Alps with the trumpet-call to right- eousness and a return to the pure and simple teachings of Primitive Christianity. Martin Luther. The most commanding figure in the spiritual renaissance known as the Protestant Reforma- tion was Martin Luther. He was born on No- vember 10, 1483, in Eisleben, Saxony. In 1501 Luther entered the University of Er- furt, graduating in 1505, after which he was ap- pointed professor in the University of Witten- berg. In 1510 he went to Rome. The secularization of the Church was almost at its height at that time, and what he beheld amazed and shocked him. In 1517 he took his stand against the grow- ing corruption of the Church, nailing ninety-five theses on the door of the church, and, as has been said, “by that action made an epoch in history and the commencement of a new era for man.” He soon became a storm-center in the religious world. His eloquence and power attracted great numbers to hear him. His earnestness, reason and sincerity won an ever-increasing multitude. At length he was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms to answer charges against w 110 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. him. Charles V, Emperor of Germany, sent him a safe conduct. John Huss had had a safe con- duct, but that had not saved him from the deadly hate of Rome, and Luther’s friends urged him not to go. But though realizing the peril, he was nothing if not courageous, and declared he would go “if there were as many devils in Worms as rooftiles.” On his way he composed the soul- stirring sacred song known as Luther’s Psalm. At the Diet of Worms Luther boldly defended his position, refusing to recant, and closing his defense with the memorable words: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. God help me.” The Emperor was urged to violate his safe conduct, that the Church might deal with Luther after her heart, but this Charles refused to do. On his way home from Worms, Luther was sur- rounded by soldiers, who commanded him to don a soldier’s uniform. Then they took him to the castle of Wartsburg where he was kept a pris- oner for over a year. This, however, was the work of his steadfast friend, the Elector of Sax- ony, who wished to protect him from the ven- geance of Rome. It gave him the opportunity to do very vital work, for he now translated the Bible into German and wrote over one hundred small books and tracts, as well as the words and music of many hymns. Finally the Pope excommunicated Luther, but the great reformer boldly burned the Pope’s bull, thus throwing down the gauntlet in the face of the greatest and most merciless power of civili- zation. In 1525 Luther married Catharina von Bora, who had been a nun. The marriage was ex- tremely happy and from the union came five children. In 1530 the Augsburg Confession was given to the world. Luther died in 1546, after having done probably more than any other man of his age for intel- lectual enlightenment and spiritual liberation. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Ill Hugh Latimer. Hugh Latimer (1490-1555), one of the great English reformers who in 1530 became famed for his eloquence and profoundly religious spirit, served Queen Anne Boleyn in the capacity of chaplain, upon the advice of Cranmer. From 1535 to 1539 he was Bishop of Worcester. When Henry VIII demanded of him acceptance of the articles known in history as the Bloody Six Arti- cles, he refused and was thrown into the Tower. Edward VI released him, but Mary the Catholic, who succeeded Edward, had him thrown into the Tower a second time. Together with Ridley, an- other high-minded reformer and distinguished divine, he was burned at the stake in Oxford, October 16, 1555. When led to the stake Lati- mer evinced a spirit of faith-inspired exaltation. “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley,” he ex- claimed, “and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England as shall never be put out.” Giordano Bruno. Giordano Bruno, one of the early scientific philosophers, was born in Nola, in the kingdom of Naples, about the middle of the sixteenth century. He entered at an early age the order of the Dominicans, but owing to his skepticism in regard to transubstantiation and the Immacu- late Conception, he found it necessary to flee from the convent. Bruno held that there were other worlds besides the earth, and that they were probably peopled. His metaphysical phil- osophy was pantheistic. He held that the infinite soul of God did not merely inhabit or pervade His universe, but that the universe was merely a manifestion of Him, and therefore itself di- vine. God was therefore, in the most literal and physical sense, all in all. He was arrested by the officers of the Inquisition and conveyed to Rome in 1598. He was there subjected for two 112 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. years to persecution, in the vain hope that he would recant. This he refused to do and was consequently brought to the stake on February 17, 1600, and burned as an obstinate heretic. Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School. Francisco Ferrer (1859-1909) was born in Alella, Spain, near Barcelona, in 1859. In 1879 he nroclaimed himself a republican and engaged in an abortive revolution led by General Villa- campa. After its failure, he fled to Paris. Here he was secretary to the Spanish republican leader, Ruiz Zorrilla. He sunnorted himself dur- ing this period by giving Spanish lessons and was himself an omnivorous reader and student of intellectual development and scientific prog- ress. He became an ardent disciple of the evo- lutionary philosopher, Ernest Haeckel. His so- cial and political views underwent a material change during this period and he came to feel, as Havelock Ellis later pointed out, that a sound educational system, on non-clerical lines with stress on the moral side of education, held the hope of the future. “Against immense difficulties,” observes Have- lock Ellis, - “Ferrer devoted himself with persist- ency and success to the establishment of such a system of education. His death was due to his devotion to this cause.” He loved Spain and long dreamed of her lib- eration from the age-long night of clerical domi- nation through the light of liberal education and advancing civilization. In the Modern School he believed lay the hope of Spain, and finally one of his pupils died and left him a bequest sufficient to enable him to found the school of which he had so long and ardently dreamed. He went to Barcelona and founded the Modern School, which commenced to radiate the light of a lofty humanitarianism and general intelligence to so marked a degree as to arouse the fierce THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 113 animosity of the clericals, who dread nothing so much as the liberation of the brain through free- dom of thought, conscience, speech, press and as- sembly. “They looked,” wrote Leonard D. Abbott, the scholarly head of the Ferrer school movement in America, “for an excuse to suppress them, and in 1906 their opportunity came. Mateo Morral, who had been connected with the schools, threw a bomb at the King and Queen of Spain. Fer- rer was charged with complicity in the act, and held in prison for a whole year. But nothing could be proved against him. “The second opportunity of the clericals came in July, 1909, when an uprising inspired by in- dignation against an unjust war in Morocco took place in Barcelona. “Ferrer was arrested again, this time on the charge of having been the head and chief of the Barcelona uprising. The second charge was as false as the first one. “Neverthless, he was condemned to death by a court-martial, and was shot at Montjuich fort- ress on October 13. His last words were: ‘Long live the Modern School V ” THE VATICAN. The Vatican, which includes the Pope’s palace and is one of the most interesting historic as- semblages of buildings in Europe today, occu- pies 85,000 square feet, not including 46,021 square feet occupied by the Basilica of St. Peters. The garden and twenty courts approximate forty acres. Here are found the Sistine Chapel and museums and art galleries containing some of the greatest art treasures of the world. The Vatican contains about one thousand rooms. The cost of building the Vatican reached, at the end of the seventeenth century, fifty million r 114 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. dollars. The actual wealth of the Vatican in terms of money is beyond figures. At the Vatican was held, in 1869-1870, the last great council of the Roman Catholic Church, at which time the dogma of Papal infallibility was promulgated. According to the Wall Street papers, the Vati- can has forty million dollars invested in Ameri- can railway securities. The Vatican Council. The last great church council, which convened in July, 1870, and known as the Vatican Council, formally raised the claim of Papal infallibility to the dignity of a “divinely revealed” dogma of the Church. The Dogma of Infallibility. The following is the exact phrasing with which the dogma is asserted, as published in “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees”: “Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Chris- tian people, with the approval of the sacred coun- cil, we teach and define that it is a dogma di- vinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra , that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Chris- tians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic au- thority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regard- ing faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of them- selves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.” THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 115 I PART IV. The Supreme Crisis That Confronts Democracy. THE CAMPAIGN TO MAKE AMERICA “DOMI- NANTLY CATHOLIC.'” For more than a generation the Roman Catho- lics have cherished the dream of making the United States “dominantly Catholic.” In the early eighties or thereabouts, Mr. Wil- liam F. Markoe, a prominent official of the Catho- lic Truth Society, delivered an address on “The Catholic Church and the American Republic,” which was later published as Pamphlet No. 6 by that society. In this address he exclaimed: “Is not this whole country stamped for a Catholic land?” “Can we expect anything less than a glorious triumph for Catholicity in America?” In 1890 Archbishop Ireland delivered an ad- dress on “The New Century,” in which he stated as his conviction that the great work that “the Catholics of the United States are called to do in the coming century” was “to make America Catholic and to solve for the Church Universal the all-absorbing problem with which the age confronts her.” In “The Mission Movement in America,” pub- lished in 1909 by the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C., this declaration is made: 116 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “Our purpose is to make America dominantly Catholic.” A Proper Aim, If the Means Employed Are Legitimate. Such is the dream and the aim of the Roman hierarchy, and this purpose, thus, frankly ex- pressed, is perfectly legitimate, provided the Ro- man Catholics carry on the work in conformity with the spirit, the ideals and the laws of our free democracy. They have a perfect right to convince and convert Protestant America, if they can do so by appeals to the reason of the people in full, free and frank discussion. If, on the other hand, they resort to coercion, seeking to prevent both sides from enjoying ab- solute liberty of speech; if they indulge in crimi- nal lawlessness in attempting to prevent criti- cism and a full discussion of the issues in- volved; if they manifest that spirit of intolerance to liberty of conscience that was shown by Pius X a few years ago, when he denounced the Spanish law permitting Protestants to post no- tices of their meetings; if they attack the great fundamental bulwarks of democracy by seeking to abridge freedom of speech, press and as- sembly; then a grave and inescapable duty con- fronts every man and woman of whatever faith who is worthy to be called an American citizen. No one who believes in the free democracy of our government, which has raised the Re- public to her proud pre-eminence among free na- tions, can remain silent in the presence of at- tempts to abridge liberty of the press, to secure special favors from the State in the way of sec- tarian appropriations, or to discredit our public schools, and be quit of moral responsibility; for these things not only differentiate free democ- racy from all class-rule and despotic forms of government, but they fend and protect the in- dividual, free society and advancing civilization THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 117 alike from oppression, intolerance, persecution and religious bigotry. No other alternative is left to the friends of free institutions than to bravely and uncompromisingly oppose all efforts of religio-political bigotry that war on funda- mental democracy. What Do the Facts Reveal? Now what are the facts in the story of the militant effort during recent years to make the United States “dominantly Catholic” ? Since the organization and rapid growth of the great secret Roman Catholic society, the Knights of Columbus, and since the American Federation of Catholic Societies has commenced to actively meddle with public affairs in the United States, there has developed in our midst a nation-wide attempt to suppress freedom of speech and press, not only through coercive measures and the use of the boycott, but by num- erous exhibitions of criminal lawlessness and murderous assault, that afford a bold and im- pressive illustration of the legitimate result of a belief in ideals that are in direct and deadly opposition to the free democratic theories of our government. Intolerance, Lawlessness and War on Freedom of Speech and Press Characterize the Campaign to Make America “Dominantly Catholic.” It is no longer necessary to go to the dark and tragic pages of past history, no longer necessary to point out the intolerance and deadly animosity toward freedom of speech, press and assembly and to popular secular education as seen in Catholic lands. America, since the rise of the Knights of Columbus, affords a chapter in the history of lawless intolerance and hatred of free 118 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. thought, speech and press that eloquently proves the deadly peril to the free democracy of Wash- ington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Phillips of the militant upholders of the governmental theories of the Roman hierarchy. This campaign has been so methodically car- ried forward, along several definite lines, that it clearly indicates that it has been carefully mapped out and is being carried forward with a degree of unanimity that suggests the militant campaigns of earlier and darker days, when the Dominicans and Franciscans led the aggressive Roman Catholic effort to root out heresy throughout Europe. Some Distinguishing Features of the Un-Ameri- can Campaign to Substitute Papal for Democratic Theories. The leading lines of action that have marked politico-ecclesiastical Romanism during recent years, and especially since the organization of the Knights of Columbus, may be briefly sum- marized as follows: (1) Systematic attempts to prevent freedom of discussion in the presence of all matters that the Catholic Church does not wish discussed. (2) Substitution of offensive epithets, abus- ive terms and sweeping denunciations for rea- son and argument. (3) Threats of riot and engaging in lawless rioting and disorder to prevent public speakers from criticising Rome, defending our public schools from the aggressive attacks of the Ro- man Church, and seeking to preserve the old- time democratic demand that all questions be settled by full, free discussion and appeals to the reason and sense of justice and fairness of the people. (4) Overt acts of criminal lawlessness and murderous assaults on distinguished and high- minded men, culminating in murder. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 119 (5) Extraordinary appeals to the courts to prevent speakers or editors from merely repro- ducing the obscene, lewd and immoral instruc- tions given by the Roman Catholic Saint Al- phonsus Liguori to priests as questions which they are to put to maidens and matrons in the secrecy of the confessional. (6) Nation-wide attempts of politico-eccle- siastical Romanism, led by Knights of Columbus and Federation of Catholic Societies, to further abridge liberty of press by national and State legislation. No Good Cause Need Fear Reason and Free Discussion. A good cause, or one that appeals to the rea- son, intelligence and sense of justice of the peo- ple, has nothing to fear but everything to gain by free and full discussion. Even severe or un- just criticism will help a good cause, for it gives it a publicity that promotes investigation. No truer statement was ever made by a statesman than Jefferson’s declaration that: “Reason and free inquiry are the only effec- tual agents against error. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” Any cause that shrinks from full and free dis- cussion is open to suspicion. When those who are promoting a cause feel that it is necessary to prevent full and free criticism and discussion, that it is even necessary to resort to lawlessness and also to government aid against their critics, they, by such action, confess that their scheme will not bear the light of full investigation, that it runs counter to reason and is evil rather than good. 120 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Attempts at Censorship of the News, Editorial and Advertising Columns of the Secular Press. Since the Roman hierarchy throughout the Re- public has become ramified in an organized way, especially since it has, through great secret and other organizations, been working in a systematic and determined manner to make America “domi- nantly Catholic,” there has gone forward a stren- uous effort to prevent the secular press from giving the same fair hearing to the critics of Romanism that it gives to the Knights of Colum- bus and other outspoken critics of those who op- pose the attempt to substitute the Papal for the democratic theory of government. News, edi- torial, and even advertising columns of the secu- lar press have responded to this general at- tempt. So successful has been the un-American effort to destroy free discussion that today it is practically impossible to secure a hearing for or obtain a free discussion of vital religio-po- litical questions in our great daily papers. The examples of this character that might be cited, like the examples in support of each of the six counts above mentioned, Would require a large volume to briefly epitomize. Space pre- vents our doing more than give three brief exam- ples showing how religio-political Rome prevents freedom of discussion in the departments of gen- eral correspondence and news, in the editorial and advertising columns of the press. Citation Number One. In March, 1914, a determined attempt by lead- ing Republican politicians of Massachusetts was made to prevent the nomination of two popular and able members of the party, who had made themselves objectionable to the clericals or re- ligio-political Romanists by their effort to take religion out of politics, in the only way it can THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 121 ever be taken out without sacrificing the funda- mental theory of our government. It was proposed to> submit to the electors of Massachusetts an amendment to the State Con- stitution prohibiting the appropriation of public funds for sectarian institutions. The clericals who oppose the free democratic ideal and are seeking to gain special privileges for the Eoman Catholic Church, not only opposed the submission of the proposed amendment, but naturally enough wished to discredit these two champions of the non-sectarian amendment. A gentleman, the author of numerous widely circulated books, a paid contributor to leading magazines and periodicals, including three Bos- ton daily papers, wrote a letter giving reasons why, as a believer in the fundamental democ- racy of the fathers, he favored the amendment and disapproved of the efforts to defeat these gentlemen because of their activity in its be- half. The letter was temperate, and carefully refrained from any attack, direct or indirect, on any church, though standing strongly for the democratic theory. Only one daily, “The Chris- tian Science Monitor,” would publish this letter. This incident is strictly typical and illustrative of the success of the effort to prevent free dis- cussion of fundamental democratic propositions which conflict with the political ambitions of the Church of Rome in the Republic today. In passing, it may be interesting to note that owing to the patriotic press and the organizations that are springing up all over the land to pre- serve the fundamentals of our free democratic government the efforts of the Roman Catholics and the daily press signally failed, as in the primaries and on election day both gentlemen were triumphantly elected, one polling more votes than any candidate on either ticket. 122 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Citation Number Two. When a party of Knights of Columbus, at Marshall, Texas, on February 3, 1915, killed Rev. William Black in his room at his hotel after he refused to obey them and not lecture that even- ing, the Associated Press sent out the follow- ing seven-line news item: “Marshall, Texas, Feb. 3.—William Black, traveling lecturer, and John Rogers, a contractor, are dead and John Copeland cashier of a bank here, is not expected to live, as a result of a shooting affray here early tonight in Black’s room at a hotel.” If this, high-handed invasion of the constitu- tional right of free speech, followed by murder, had been the work of a band of outlaws, or if Guardians of Liberty had gone to the room, of a Roman Catholic priest who was billed to speak in criticism of Protestant beliefs or of the pub- lic schools, had served notice on him that he could not speak, and on his refusal had killed him, would the Associated Press have deemed the matter of so little interest as to have dismissed the news of it with seven lines? So much for correspondents writing on live issues and news of murders in the attempt of Knights of Columbus to prevent free speech. Now let us see how editors fare if they offend those who are organized to make America “domi- nantly Catholic.” Citation Number Three. In the report of Anthony Matre, secretary, of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, given at the annual meeting of that organiza- tion which convened in Milwaukee on August 10, 1913, we have an excellent example of how the once free American editor is now subject to religio-political censorship. In Mr. Matre’s . re- port as given in the press, we find the following: THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 123 “The St. Louis ‘Post-Dispatch’ published an editorial which was considered obnoxious. We saw the publisher, not the editor, and a retrac- tion was quickly published.” At the same convention the boast was made that the Federation had succeeded in having eighteen firms withdraw their advertisements from “Watson’s Magazine,” leaving but the Bell Telephone and the Vose Piano Company in its pages. During the past few years leading papers in various cities and towns have not only refused to make any news notice of largely attended patriotic meetings addressed . by distinguished speakers, but on many occasions have refused pay advertisements announcing the forthcoming lectures, as a result of the nation-wide organized effort to substitute the Papal idea of censor- ship and prohibition of free discussion in place of the American spirit of fair play or the demo- cratic idea of giving all sides a fair hearing. Are organizations responsible for this shameful and subversive conduct revealing the spirit of Jefferson and the fathers of our free Republic, or that of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X? To which theory of government are they giving their allegiance? Epithets of Abuse and Sweeping Denunciations in Lieu of Reason and Argument. One of the most striking features of the mili- tant war against the free democracy of the fath- ers, as carried on by the organized politico-Ro- manists, is the substitution of epithets of abuse, inuendoes and sweeping denunciations for rea- son and free discussion. A citizen may, like Gen. Nelson A. Miles, stand pre-eminent among the illustrious soldiers and publicists of the Re- public; he may be a clergyman of spotless repu- tation, or one prominent in any other field of activity, brave, able, broad-visioned and nobly tolerant; yet if he dares to defend the principles 124 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. of the Constitution of the United States regard- ing liberty of speech, press and assembly; if he bravely stands for the American democratic doc- trine of absolute divorce of Church and State, and upholds our magnificent public secular school system, he is sure to become a center for vicious attempts to discredit him and to misrepresent his aims, utterances and the ideals he is bat- tling for, by those who dare not face full and free discussion, and who, while demanding freedom for themselves, are not willing to accord the same freedom to those who stand by the prin- ciples of free democracy. It would require a volume to cite cases of this character that have appeared in widely circulated Catholic journals in recent years. Space compels us, however, to confine ourselves to two quota- tions, both general in character, but each illus- trating the intemperate and reckless spirit that too frequently marks attempts to substitute of- fensive epithets and scandalous imputations for reason and logical arguments. Both these quota- tions are taken from the “Western Watchman,” a Catholic weekly which at the time they were pub- lished was under the editorial management of a Catholic priest in good standing. Indeed, the second quotation is from a sermon by this priest. A Typical Example of the Campaign of Abuse and Scurrility. In 1913 the school committee of Charlotte, North Carolina, employed two Protestant teachers in place of two Catholics, just as in a great number of instances in large American cities, recently, Catholics have replaced Protestant teachers. This event was made the occasion for a nation- wide protest on the part of those who are waging an aggressive war against our public school system. In commenting on this happening the “Western Watchman” for June 26, 1913, said: THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 125 “The Church of God is a perfect society and she can adopt her own methods of preserving dis- cipline. But Protestants do not believe in a church of God. They do not believe that Jesus Christ established a church. They think that all sects are of human origin and all churches man-made. They, therefore, have no right to inflict any punishment except curtailment of corporate privileges of expulsion. “Protestants do not know the meaning of civil and religious liberty, and they never will. There may be another and a more serious reason for the dismissal of those Catholic teachers by the school board of Charlotte. “North Carolina and Tennessee are the two most benighted, and at the same time the two most Protestant States in the Union. The men have neither religion nor morality. We were astounded a short time ago to learn from a prominent lady of North Carolina, who is a con- vert of some years, that the men of that State are notorious libertines. She told us the wealthier class of male whites did little but drink whiskey on the sly and multiply mulattoes.” The second quotation is an extract from a ser- mon preached by the late Rev. D. S. Phelan, L.L.D., editor of “The Western Watchman,” and published in that journal in its issue for June 27, 1912. A Reckless and Treasonable Utterance. “And why is it the Church is strong? Why is it everybody is afraid of the Catholic Church? And the American people are more afraid of her than any people of the world. Why are they afraid of the Catholic Church? They know what the Catholic Church means. It means all the Catholics of the world; not of one country, or two countries, but all the countries of the world. And it means more than that: It means that the Catholics of the world love the Church more than 126 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. anything else, that the Catholics of the world love the Church more than they do their own govern- ments, more than they do their own nations, more than they do their own people, more than they do their own' fortunes, more than they do their own selves. We of the Catholic Church are ready to go to the death for the Church. Under God she is the supreme object of our worship. They tell us that we think more of the Church than we, do of the United States; of course we do. Why, if the government of the United States were at war with the Church, we would say tomorrow, to Hell with the government of the United States; and if the Church and all the governments of the world were at war, we would say, to Hell with all the governments of the world. They say we are Catholics first and Americans decidedly after- wards. There is no doubt about it. We love the Church more than we love any and all the govern- ments of the world. “I love the people of America; I love the people of every nation; I glory in their loyalty; but let the governments of the world steer clear of the Catholic Church: let the emperors, let the kings and the presidents not come into conflict with the heads of the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church is everything to all the Catholics of the world; they renounce all nationalities where there is a question of loyalty to her. And why is it the Pope is so strong? Why is it that in this country, where we have only seven per cent of the population, the Catholic Church is so much feared? She is loved by all her children and feared by everybody. Why is it the Pope is such a tremendous power? Why, the Pope is the ruler of the world. All the emperors, all the kings, all the princes, all the presidents of the world today are as these altar boys of mine. The Pope is the ruler of the world. Why? Because he is the ruler of the Catholics of the world, and the Catholics of all the world would die for the rights of the Pone. He is the head of the Church and they would die for the Church. And the Church THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 127 is the Church of Jesus Christ, and they need not have any misgivings on that score; there need be no misconceptions there; the Catholics of the world are Catholics first and always; they are Americans, they are Germans, they are French or they are English afterwards.” The Reason Why Father Phelan Was Not Cen- sured by Rome. Why was not priest Phelan promptly censured by those in authority in the Catholic Church in American? Why, indeed, was he not summoned to Rome to do penance for this treasonable utter- ance? Father McGlynn, when he preached the Single Tax, was summoned to Rome and disciplined. Father Thos. McGrady, when he preached Social- ism, was unfrocked. Yet here we find a priest in good standing daring to preach from his pulpit, and then scatter broadcast through his paper, utterances which if spoken by Socialist agitators would have been sweepingly denounced in press and pulpit. The reason why Rome wisely ignored this shameful utterance is accounted for by the fact that the fundamental statement insisted upon — namely, that the Church is above the State and that Catholics are expected to follow the com- mandments or laws of the Pope when they con- flict with those of the State authorities, is clearly in line with the declarations and teachings of the Papacy since the days of the publication of the Syllabus of Pius IX., as will be seen by referring to Part II. of this volume. A Typical Example of Intolerance in St. Louis, Missouri. In this connection, and as illustrating that the intolerance of Rome is not confined to those who criticise her doctrines and dogmas per se, we in- 128 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. vite attention to the preventing' of General Miles from filling an engagement in St. Louis, in 1912. This distinguished soldier and publicist of un- sullied reputation, enjoying the respect of all high-minded lovers of democratic institutions, was engaged to speak in a theater in St. Louis. He merely proposed to make a- patriotic appeal to American voters and outline the principles and purposes of the Guardians of Liberty, a patriotic organization which wars on no church, but simply seeks to preserve the constitutional guarantees of liberty and the great democratic provisions for safeguarding popular secular education, divorce of Church and State, and the full and free exer- cise of liberty of thought, speech, press and assembly. When General Miles, who is the head of the Guardians of Liberty, reached St. Louis, it was found that the Catholics had succeeded in bring- ing pressure to bear upon those in control of the theater, inducing them to cancel the engagement. The proprietors of other halls had also been seen, and it was impossible to secure a building for the accommodation of the public desiring to hear this distinguished speaker. In referring to this typical example of Catholic attempted censorship of free speech, the “Truth-Seeker” for June 29, 1912, ob- served: “The closing of the halls in St. Louis against General Miles, at the instance of the Roman Catholic Church, should surprise nobody. * * * Gag law is always a confession of guilt. If the Catholic Church had nothing to be ashamed of, it would laugh at attacks and would welcome the widest publicity for the utterances of its oppo- nents. Its frantic efforts to prevent the other side from having a hearing is evidence that it fears the truth.” THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 129 A Prominent Roman Catholic Official Would Suppress the Guardians of Liberty. Another impressive but very typical illustration of the spirit of intolerance that is so character- istic of political Romanists will be found in the following incident: At a meeting of the Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus, held in Convention Hall, Boston, Mass., November 22, 1914, Mayor James M. Curley, of Boston, declared that the Guardians of Liberty should not be permitted to exist on American soil. The Mayor, in a letter written to Mr. James P. Logie and published in the “Boston Daily Journal, of November 24, 1914, admitted making this declaration and gave as the reason that the or- ganization fostered bigotry. Elsewhere in this Manual will be found the declaration of principles of this great organiza- tion, which numbers about one million thinking and high-minded patriots, and which embraces many distinguished citizens in all walks of life. The bigotry and intolerance which would sup- press an organization headed by a man like Gen. Nelson A. Miles, and which stands only for main- taining the vital and fundamental principles of our free democracy, is on a par with the action of the Knights of Columbus and several Roman Catholic Congressmen, who have been striving to secure legislation that would further abridge the freedom of the press, and it also savors of the spirit of intolerance which has marked the action of the Knights of Columbus and other Roman Catholics who, during the past three or four years, by boycott and by lawless and murderous assaults on prominent Protestant clergymen and other distinguished speakers, have sought to sup- press freedom of utterance in the United States. No fair professions or adroit and misleading declarations to lull patriots to sleep should be allowed to weigh against the words and the actions that are today marking the campaign of organized Romanism to make America dominantly Catholic. A 130 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The Attempt to Prevent the Convention of the American Federation of Patriotic Societies^ Another striking illustration of the intolerant spirit of politico-Romanism was seen in the shameful treatment received by the American Federation of Patriotic Societies at the hands of the “Greater Dayton Association” in September, 1915. The facts are briefly as follows: The American Federation of Patriotic Socie- ties, described elsewhere in this Manual, is an important federated body, representing a number of the patriotic organizations which are striving to preserve the fundamental bulwarks of our democratic government from the aggressive at- tacks of the friends of the Papal theory. It planned a great convention to be held in Sep- tember of 1915, and received an invitation from the Greater Dayton Association to hold the con- vention in the city of Dayton, Ohio. Knowing from experience that politico-Roman- ism would attempt to prevent the convention be- ing held, Mr. D. J. Reynolds, President of the A. F. of P. S., warned Mr. S. H. Ankeney, pub- licity agent of the Greater Dayton Association, that he should be careful before making prom- ises, because of the hostility of Roman Catholics to free discussion. We quote from Mr. Reynolds's letter : “We are strictly, as you will note by the en- closed literature, a patriotic and non-political or- ganization, standing squarely upqn the principles enunciated by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. If you have any Roman Catholics on your Board of Di- rectors, who are influential, they will fight you to a standstill to prevent our organization from meeting there, as they always do elsewhere, be- ing avowedly the enemies of free speech. I thought proper to give you this word of warning so that you might not make any overtures to us that you would afterwards have reason to re- gret.” THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 131 Here was a fair warning. Mr. Ankeney re- plied on April 24th as follows: “Your letter of April 22nd is at hand. In all of our dealings with convention organizations we assume a strictly judicial attitude. The fact that your Federation is an anti-Catholic organi- zation would have no influence with us. We are planning to render some service to a Catholic society which is to meet here this summer. We are just as willing to render service to a non- Catholic body.” The invitation was accepted. The Greater Day- ton Association made several generous promises in regard to halls, programs, and other matters, such as wideawake municipal promoting bodies frequently offer as inducements to bring conven- tions to cities. There were no indications of trouble as the weeks passed. Finally the patri- otic forces started for Dayton. Mr. D. J. Rey- nolds left his home at Minneapolis and while en route for the convention was handed the follow- ing telegram: "September 11, 1915. D. J. Reynolds, President American Federation of Patriotic Societies, Minneapolis, Minn.: The Greater Dayton Association hereby with- draws from agreement of July 27, 1915, covering convention of the American Federation of Patri- otic Societies proposed to be held in Dayton, Ohio, September 16, 17, 18. All proposed arrange- ments for the convention have been abandoned. Confirmation by mail. THE GREATER DAYTON ASSOCIATION. J. M. GUILD, Executive Secretary. R. W. MENTEL, Convention Mgr.” Nor was this all. Arriving in the city it was found the hotels had made no provisions for the delegates and the managers of the various halls in the city "had been seen.” For a time it seemed that no place could be obtained. The 132 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Masons, however, threw open their hall and an enthusiastic and successful convention was held in spite of this unparalleled act of treachery and notwithstanding the unfriendly action of the press and the threat of boycott that was indulged in by those who hoped to prevent citizens from giving aid and encouragement to the patriotic visitors. Lawless Invasion of Freedom of Speech; A Record of Anarchy, Mobocracy and Murder. We now come to notice one of the most serious aspects of this organized attempt to make Amer- ica “dominantly Catholic”—this effort ,to substi- tute Papal theories of rule for those of free democracy. During recent years, since the Knights of Co- lumbus have been holding their secret meetings and public conclaves, there has developed a spirit of anarchy and criminal lawlessness, a deliberate attempt to set at defiance the nation-old provi- sion for full and free discussion and criticism of all questions that concern the public, and to re- establish the old order of suppression of free discussion, thought, speech and press which has been one of the most evil characteristics of every land where the pretensions and power of the Papal See have been accepted by the State. Not since the sad and tragic days of the Re- construction, when the Republic emerged from its baptism of blood, in which the hate and bit- terness of millions had been aroused, have we beheld anything like the nation-wide epidemic of criminal lawlessness which has marked the or- ganized effort of the Catholic Church to become a dominant power in politics. Not since the days of the Molly Maguires has there been such a systematic attempt to trample upon human rights, even to the destruction of life, and to prevent all free discussion and criticism as has marked the last few years, during which time, by its own confession, the American Federation of Catholic THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 133 Societies has been so active in its guardianship over the press, its interference with editorials and advertisements and its pernicious activity in politics, and since Knights of Columbus have become such a militant influence in the effort to further abridge the freedom of the press. It would be entirely impossible in the compass of even a moderately large volume to properly chronicle the multitudinous attempts by the Ro- man Catholics to interfere with free discussion, by threat of riot, by exhibitions of mob violence, criminal lawlessness and murderous assaults, which in one case at least culminated in murder. The following record, however, is typical of the various methods that have been resorted to in the nation-wide effort to overthrow freedom of utterance and re-establish the reign of intoler- ance that marked the Dark Ages and has been the greatest handicap to advancing civilization in every land where the Papal authority has been dominant. Murderous Assault on Reverend Jeremiah J. Crowley. At Oelwein, Iowa, June 12, 1913, Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, after delivering a lecture on the American public schools at the Opera House, was assaulted by a mob of Roman Catholics. After having his eyes blackened and being roughly treated, he was struck a heavy blow with an iron instrument which inflicted a severe wound. Friends rescued the assailed lecturer before he was killed, and summoned medical assistance. Later three well-known Catholics were arraigned, pleaded guilty and were fined for this murderous assault. Since then a persistent effort has been made throughout the United States, by Knights of Columbus and other Catholics interested in suppressing freedom of speech, to prevent this distinguished speaker from obtaining a hearing in various American cities. The effort to shut him out of various halls, to induce the press to 134 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. pay no attention to his coming, not even to pub- lish paid advertisements, and the numerous at- tempts to prevent posters and other display ad- vertisements from being properly brought before the attention of the public, are but a few of the multitudinous means that have been resorted to in the systematic attempt to prevent this speaker from being heard. Why Rome Fears and Dreads Him. Political Rome fears Father Crowley because he is one of the strongest champions of the pub- lic schools in America, as he is also one of the most brilliant and authoritative speakers who have undertaken to contrast the Papal and dem- ocratic theories of government, and it fears him because of his careful presentation of a subject about which he is a master. Who Is Jeremiah J. Crowley? In a splendidly written extended sketch at the time of his leaving the Catholic Church, which appeared in the St. Louis “Republic” on Decem- ber 1, 1901, we have the following admirable characterization : “Father Crowley is a man and a priest of high intellectual endowments; one of rare, almost fa- natical piety. His career as a student, as a citi- zen, and as a minister of his church is exemplary from the standards of measurement within and without the Roman Church. A product of Car- low College, a living example of the genuine Irish gentleman, young, handsome, a giant physically and yet a person of much tenderness as well as courage, Father Crowley stands forth in his own right as a personage sure to prepossess acquaint- ances and likely to win and hold their high re- gard. He is abstemious in his habits, industrious to the limit of his great physical power, studious to a degree, intensely sincere, direct and frank of mind and manner.” THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 135 The vigorous attacks on Father Crowley which have emanated from various Catholic sources have fallen flat by reason of the standing chal- lenge which this intrepid publicist has made for more than two years, but which the militant Catholics, notwithstanding their liberal fund for prosecuting critics of the Church, have never seen fit to accept. This challenge reads as fol- lows: “I retired voluntarily, gladly, from the priest- hood of Rome, after a vain attempt, in combina- tion with other priests, to secure a reform of Romanistic abuses from within. This failing, no other course was open but to quit the accursed system forever. I will give ten thousand dol- lars to any person who can prove that I was excommunicated, and that the statements and charges against priests, prelates and Popes in my books are untrue; and furthermore, I will agree to hand over the plates of these books and stop their publication forever. Will Rome accept this challenge? If not, why not?” Mobocracy Triumphant in New Lexington, Ohio. On September 12, 1913, Rev. Jeremiah J. Crow- ley was engaged to speak at the Opera House in New Lexington, Ohio. Immediately those who are attempting to substitute Papal theories for the democratic ideals of free discussion began to prepare for a riot. The manifestation of law- lessness soon became so apparent that the Mayor of New Lexington took fright and called in the militia. Captain Paul Tague of Company H, of the Seventh Regiment, placed the town under martial law and, according to the “Times-Re- corder” of Zanesville, Ohio, for September 13th, the soldiers barred Mr. Crowley from the Opera House. a 136 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Lawless Attempt to Prevent a Prominent Chris- tian Clergyman from Speaking on Martin Luther and the Reformation. On June 17, 1913, Rev. Wallace Tharp, pastor of the First Christian Church of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, delivered a lecture under the auspices of the Guardians of Liberty, the Junior Order of American Mechanics, and other patriotic bodies, at the North Side Music Hall. Admittance was by ticket. On this occasion the Roman Catholics had caused to be printed a large num- ber of bogus tickets, and when the lecture was about to begin, the mob of Romanists attempted to gain admittance to the hall. On discovery that these tickets were counterfeit, the doors were closed with the assistance of the police. In order to control the crowd more policemen were sent for. The prompt arrest of one man for assaulting a policeman served to somewhat dampen the ardor of the mob. However, there was much loud talk- ing after the lecture commenced, evidently with the purpose of disturbing the speaker. Later in the evening the night force of policemen assem- bled and finally succeeded in dispersing the mob. Mr. Tharp, in an interview with a Pittsburgh “Dispatch” reporter, stated that he had received a number of letters warning him that if he per- sisted in delivering his lecture on Martin Luther he would be assassinated. A Typical Example of Catholic Intolerance and Anarchy. On November 7, 1913, about eight hundred citizens of Carbondale, Pennsylvania, quietly as- sembled in the Berean Baptist Church to listen to a lecture by Robert Wilson on Romanism. The audience had been admitted by ticket, the blinds were drawn, and the lecture was proceeding, when a mob of two thousand enemies of free speech gathered around the building and began hurling stones through windows, breaking the panes and THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 137 some of the window sash, seriously defacing the interior decoration and also injuring a number of persons, notably the guard at the door, who was knocked down and brutally beaten before the chief of police, with revolver in hand, was able to drive back the crowd. Shrieks and cries of “Wilson! Lynch him! Kill him!” etc., were heard on every side. The speaker, however, managed to elude the mob, some of whom finally broke into the basement of the church in an attempt to find him. One curious spectator, a washing machine agent, was mistaken for Mr. Wilson and roughly handled before he was able to convince the crowd that he was not the man they were seeking. 4 Lawless Attempt to Prevent Lecture on the Public Schools. On the morning of February 23, 1914, the Minneapolis “Tribune” published the following account of what happened at Anoka, Minnesota, as given by Mr. B. F. Dancey, a well-known lecturer, who was advertised to speak on the pub- lic schools: “Mr. Beach, Mr. Crawford, and myself,” said Mr. Dancey, “went to Anoka, where I was to de- liver a lecture on ‘The Public Schools/ in reply to the recent speech of Bird S. Coler at the Minne- apolis Pro-Cathedral. We left the hotel for the hall and had just reached a bridge. A bunch of men came up. They had a team of horses and a hayrack. “Some one in the crowd mistook Mr. Beach for me and shouted, ‘There he is!’ They grabbed Mr. Beach and Mr. Crawford and put them in the wagon. I ran across the bridge, down to the drug store and called for a policeman. He came and escorted me to the hall where I was to speak. The doors were locked against the returning mob, which tried to break them down. But I delivered my speech.” 138 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Here it will be noted that Mr. Coler, a repre- sentative of the Papal theory in government, had given his views in a lecture at the Pro- Cathedral of Minneapolis, without any exhibition of antagonism, lawlessness or mob violence; but the moment a friend of the public school was ad- vertised to speak in reply to the address, the in- tolerance of those who are determined to sub- stitute the Papal for the American theory of government, flamed forth. Nor was this all. A lecture by Mr. Dancey was advertised for the following night, but was not delivered owing to this outbreak of violence. At the same place, on Friday evening, February 20th, the speaker was advertised to address the public, but on his way from Minneapolis, sixteen miles distant, in an automobile, the lecturer was met by a band of men in automobiles who compelled him to aban- don his lecture and return to Minneapolis. Criminal Assault on a Popular Christian Evangelist. Rev. W. H. Boles, of Marion, Illinois, while delivering a series of lectures on Romanism in Springfield, Illinois, under the auspices of the Knights of Luther, was attacked upon the stage by a young Romanist and felled by a terrific blow from a water pitcher. The assailant was arrested and confessed that he had been egged on to the job by interested parties. This was on the night of Tuesday, March 24, 1914, a short time after the close of a meeting of the Knights of Columbus in a nearby hall. Knights of Columbus had used every effort to prevent Mr. Boles from securing a hall for his lectures, but without avail. The Springfield “Daily Regis- ter” gave an account of the attack. Minister Kidnapped by Catholic Mob. Rev. Benjamin Clearmont, while lecturing in Potsdam, New York, on Romanism, was kid- napped on his way to the hall where his lecture THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 139 was to be given, and carried in an automobile to Norwood, where he was hustled into a secluded farmhouse and threatened with lynching and other bodily injury unless he swore to discon- tinue his lectures. An attempt was made to carry out this threat, but the opportune arrival of the police prevented. Mr. Clearmont was guarded by the chief of police at his hotel until morning and then escorted to the railroad sta- tion to get the 6:15 train. District Attorney Crapser conducted an investigation and the de- tails of the kidnapping were published in the “Northern Tribune” of Gouvernor, New York. This occurred on March 24, 1914, the same night that Rev. W. H. Boles was attacked in Spring- field, Illinois. Kidnapping and Murderous Assault on Rev. O. L. Spurgeon. Rev. Otis L. Spurgeon, a Baptist minister of Des Moines, Iowa, while delivering a series of lectures on Romanism at Denver, Colorado, under the auspices of the Knights of Luther, was kid- napped by a body of Romanists, who it was said admitted that they were Knights of Columbus, taken from his room on the third floor of the Pierce Hotel, dragged to a waiting automobile, a leather strap being tied about his neck. On a lonely road twenty miles outside the city, he was taken from the machine, stripped naked and bru- tally beaten. The attack was made on the night of April 5, 1914, about eight o’clock. Mr. Spur- geon suffered severely from internal injuries and barely escaped with his life. The Denver “Daily News” contained the fullest report of this out- rage. Mob Violence in Jackson, Michigan. Rev. L. J. King, of Toledo, Ohio, while deliv- ering a series of lectures on Romanism in the First Baptist Church of Jackson, Michigan, had 140 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. his services interrupted by a mob of Romanists and was obliged to call on the police for safe escort from the church. He was stoned by the mob, one of his police escort was wounded in his de- fense, and much injury was done to property. The same outrages were repeated the following night, when he spoke at Odd Fellows Temple. This was on April 7 and 8, 1914. A Distinguished Clergyman the Victim of Rome’s Intolerance. Rev. A. E. Barnett of Philadelphia, while de- livering a lecture on Romanism in the Grace Methodist Episcopal Church of Buffalo, New York, was interrupted by a Knight of Columbus named McCormick, who demanded a paper which the speaker had and advanced toward the pulpit to seize it. When he was halted and ejected from the church, several hundred Catholics rushed for- ward from the back of the room and attacked the platform, while a mob outside assailed the windows with stones. Protected by four police- men, the speaker sought refuge in the United States Post Office, from which he was conducted to his train by a sheriff and deputies. The meeting was, of course, broken up. This was on the night of April 25, 1914. The Murder of the Rev. William Black by Knights of Columbus. On February 2, 1915, Rev. William Black lec- tured on Romanism at the County Court House at Marshall, Texas, under the auspices of the American Federation of Patriotic Societies. On the evening of the third of February, five well- known Knights of Columbus visited him at his room at the hotel and forbade him to speak that night. Mr. Black attempted to rise from his seat, saying, “I am going to speak tonight, and I am not going to leave town,” whereupon he was THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 141 brutally assassinated. The evidence showed that the aggressors in the affair were five Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, all armed with automatic pistols. Mr. Eilack’s secretary, who was present and witnessed the murder, promptly shot two of the assailants, when the rest retired in haste. Two Ideals of Government in Contrast. The above is merely an attempt fairly to illus- trate various illegal and criminal aspects of this nation-wide campaign by Roman Catholics against freedom of speech—this campaign against the fundamental democratic principles and most vital Constitutional guarantees. They serve to bring into bold relief the contrast between the law- abiding, order-promoting influence of the Ameri- can system of fundamental freedom, popular sec- ular education and divorce of Church and State, and the theories of the Roman Papacy, which, as we have seen, opposes all these things wher- ever and whenever Catholicism has become domi- nant. Here is an important fact to be considered in this connection. Catholics, the various Protestant churches, the apostles of fundamental democracy, the Freemasons, the Socialists, and other bodies, since the foundation of our Republic have been free to criticise each other. But among these great bodies, the Catholics are conspicuous as the one organization that plays the baby act in the presence of free criticism. On several occa- sions in recent years, priests have apologized for the criminal lawlessness of their members, on the ground that they felt so outraged at the attacks on the Church, although it is a fact that in most every instance these Catholics had never heard the speakers and had no means of judging of the character of their addresses except from Roman Catholic sources of information. Is the Roman Catholic Church ready to confess that she cannot do what Protestant churches, A 142 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. what liberal democracy, what Freemasons and other friends of fundamental democracy who be- lieve in intellectual hospitality can and do do? Is she ready to admit that in the Republic she alone must bear the odium and evil eminence of not being* able to keep her members from crim- inal lawlessness in the face of honest criticism? Roman Catholic Priests, Press and Speakers Freely Attack and Arraign Their Opponents. Here is another fact that is illuminating. While America during recent years has been disgraced by the shameful exhibitions of anarchy and crimi- nal lawlessness by Roman Catholics in their ef- forts to prevent criticism of the Church or de- fense of our free public schools, the Roman Cath- olic press, its priests and its speakers, have been unsparing in their criticisms and attacks on the public free schools of America, on Free- masons, Socialists and the Protestant organiza- tions that have merely sought to preserve for the people the glorious heritage of the fathers from the aggressions of those who hate the great democratic bulwarks of free institutions. Yet though these attacks have frequently been marked by exhibitions of violence; though the intemper- ance of the language has been often marked by a notable disregard for the demands of verity, neither the Protestant churches, the Freemasons, the millions who cherish our free public schools, the Guardians of Liberty, nor any other societies or organizations which represent the spirit of modern liberalism and advancing democracy, have attempted to abridge the right of free and full criticism and condemnation on the part of the Catholics. Catholic Intolerance vs. Democratic Intellectual Hospitality. Here, on the one hand, we have the advocates and defenders of Papal theories waging a cam- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 14S paign to suppress free discussion, peaceably when possible, but when the so-called gopher or back-door methods fail employing force and indulging in criminal lawlessness, mob-rule and anarchy. On the other hand, we have the Protestant churches, the Freemasons, the upholders of the free secular schools, and other bulwarks of free institutions, resorting not to anarchy or to mob- rule, but appealing to reason, human experience and history to sustain the principles of liberty* human rights and advancing civilization. “By their fruits ye shall know them” is strikingly ap- propriate to the present situation. I recently called the attention of a friend, a veteran newspaper man of over twenty-five years experience with daily papers, to the astounding exhibition of practical anarchy in the Republic* as evinced by the militant Catholics in these open- ing years of the twentieth century. He replied: “Such a condition would not have been pos- sible a few years ago, or before Rome had suc- ceeded in securing important places on the great daily papers of the land for her zealous mem- bers, and in honeycombing the newspaper offices with faithful and militant workers for the Roman Church. Politico-ecclesiastical Romanism feels that now, through the perfection of its organiza- tion and its ramifications in the press, it has at last gained sufficient power to prevent any gen- eral publicity being given to the outrages; and so far,” he continued, “they have succeeded. But with the rapid increase of members of secret organi- zations pledged to the maintenance of a free press, free schools and to prevent further political aggrandizement on the part of Rome, I look for an early popular revolt against censorship of religio- political outrages throughout the country. Certain it is that if the outrages had been treated as other serious crimes against individual citizens and popular rights are, by the press, public sentiment would long ere this have put a quietus on this phase of the campaign to make America ‘domi- nantly Catholic’.” 144 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Abuse of Obscenity Laws. When the laws against obscene literature were passed, many persons who were prominent in the work for sound morality and who abhorred every- thing that even savored of obscenity and immoral- ity, expressed grave fears that the laws would be invoked to prevent great and effective moral protests from being circulated, exposures of or- ganized vice from being disseminated, and that they would put an instrument of persecution into the hands of interests desirous of hiding facts which in the cause of true morality should be made public. They believed that the autocratic power given would also be used in the hands of bigoted and prejudiced officials as an instrument of persecution against noble-minded men and wo- men, especially when the victims were poor and where powerful political and business interests were ranged against them. Others questioned the wisdom of these laws because it was claimed that despotism and corruption always sought restric- tive legislation for the prevention of wholesome publicity, and these laws would be merely en- tering wedges that would be later used by un- American and sinister influences to further a campaign for the abridgment of the rightful free- dom of the press by means of slipping additional words at intervals into the statutes such as “scur- rilous,” “slanderous,” “offensive,” etc. The attempt to suppress, under the obscenity statutes, one of the greatest moral protests by Count Tolstoi early in the nineties, aroused such a storm of opposition that the censorship was checked; but the recent suppression of the reports of the vice commissions, as well as of works that were and are sternly ethical and vitally impor- tant to the best interests of morals, as technic- ally coming under the law, show that the fears of far-sighted statesmen and men of vision as well as moral rectitude were well founded. It is doubtful, however, if even these thinkers realized how quickly the Roman Catholic Church THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 145 1 would seize upon these laws to prevent ugly fact^ about her teachings and practices from being made public. Certainly no one imagined that lecturers and publishers would, through the in- strumentality of Knights of Columbus or the of- ficials of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, be prosecuted for simply reading in pub- lic or printing in Latin text in publications the verbatim questions which one of the greatest, if not the greatest, and most authoritative instruc- tors of priests and teachers of moral theology in the Roman Catholic Church prescribes, under the sanction of the Church, to be put by priests to women in the secrecy of the confessional. Yet, incredible as it may seem, such has been the des- peration and the daring of the representatives of politico-ecclesiastical Romanism in the United j States within the last few years that this is pre- cisely what has been done, as we shall presently see. The Prosecution of Rev. N. L. A. Eastman. Before giving an example of this self-condem- nation, or confession of the obscene character of the instructions given by St. Alphonsus Liguori, we must notice one of the early attempts to pre- vent exposure of Roman Catholic teaching and practices by employing the obscenity statutes. In November, 1907, Reverend N. L. A. Eastman, who was editor of the “Gospel Worker,” an ordained minister and bishop of the Gospel Work- ers of America, an incorporated Christian body, was arrested at his home in Rochester, New York, on an indictment found in the United States Dis- trict Court at Buffalo, but the case was dis- missed on demurrer. On January 21, 1908, four indictments were found in the United States Court at Elmira, New York. The case was put over several times and finally came up for trial November 13, 1908, in the United States Court at Buffalo, New York, Judge Hazel presiding. 146 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The trial closed at four P. M., Tuesday, Novem- ber 17th, the jury returning a verdict of not guilty on any of the counts as charged in the indictments. Prior to this Mr. Eastman had been arrested in 1906, but the case was dismissed in the Appellate Division of the Court. On January 21, 1907, an- other indictment was found, and after going through the lower courts it reached the Court of Appeals at Albany, New York, which stood four to three for dismissal of the case, the dissenting opinion written by Judge O’Brien, a staunch Ro- man Catholic. A full report of this case was given in the “New York Law Journal” of June 7, 1907. Here note these facts. The accused man was a high-minded Christian minister of spotless repu- tation, who was made the victim of this perse- cution in order to prevent free discussion and dis- semination of facts which should be exposed if true; and if not true, the reverend gentleman should have been proceeded against under the criminal libel laws, which give ample protection against slander and libel when the utterances are false. Catholics Expose Obscene Utterances of Their Great Theological Authority in Order to Prosecute Protestants. Now we come to what it seems to us is one of the most amazing attempts on record to sup- press freedom of utterance. It would seem that only a conviction that the Catholic Church had such complete control of public opinion-forming agencies as to be able to prevent the real facts from being spread abroad, and a conviction that desperate steps had to be taken to prevent the public from being made aware of the nature of what is uttered in the confessional, could have led those who are seeking to make America “domi- nantly Catholic” to adopt a course that, if the allegations are true, must necessarily prove a boomerang to Rome. */ THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 147 The Prosecution of Anna Lowry for Reading From the Writings of Saint Alphonsus Liguori. Anna Lowry, formerly a nun, and a woman of ability whose lectures have been widely attended and highly commended by large and intelligent audiences throughout many northern and western states, was arrested and prosecuted, at Catholic instigation, for violating the obscenity statutes, because she read during her lecture the verbatim questions which Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Catholic instructor of confessors, prescribes for priests to ask women in the confessional. This case affords a striking and concrete ex- ample of the menace to morals and rightful free- dom of the advancing censorship of politico-ec- clesiastical Romanism since the rise of the Knights of Columbus. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: On March 15, 1914, Miss Lowry lectured at Winona, Minnesota. During the course of her ad- dress she read some questions which Saint Al- phonsus Liguori prescribes for Roman Catholic priests to ask women penitents in the confes- sional. Later a Roman Catholic, who had been present at the lecture, secured a warrant for Miss Lowry’s arrest for using obscene language in her address. On May 11, 1914, Miss Lowry returned to Minnesota, where she was arrested and taken to Winona and there tried on the charge of using obscene language, the language being the verbatim quotation of the questions which Liguori prescribes for the priests to ask penitent women. According to the printed re- port of the case, the trial judge pointed out that there were but two things for the court to con- sider: First, whether the words spoken by Miss Lowry were obscene or not; second, whether Miss Lowry had used them. Since she did not deny quoting the Saint, the real issue hung wholly on whether the matter in question—that is, the ex- tracts from Liguori—was obscene. His honor de- cided that the quotations did come within the 148 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. scope of the law. He therefore found Miss Lowry guilty. Now what are the pertinent facts in this case? A lady of unimpeachable character, a public speaker in a country that guarantees freedom of discussion, lectures to an earnest-minded audi- ence which desires to hear the truth upon a vital subject. During the course of the lecture, not wishing to misrepresent her subject, she read verbatim from one of the greatest, if indeed he is not the most authoritative, teachers of moral theology in the Roman Catholic Church, the ques- tions which this approved leader instructs the priests to ask of women in the confessional. For this she is arrested, at the instigation of a Roman Catholic, on the charge of violating the obscenity statutes. Now who was the author of the obscene lan- guage complained of? The Roman Catholic Saint Liguori. In reading his words, was Miss Lowry slandering the Catholic Church? No, for in 1836 the Catholic Church canonized Alphonsus Li- guori, and in 1871 made him a doctor, thus de- claring that he is one whose teachings must be accepted and followed by all. With these facts before us, is it not perfectly clear that it was not the obscenity contained in the utterances of the Roman Catholic Saint that the Catholics were concerned about, but the fact that the American people were being made ac- quainted with the nature of the questions pre- scribed for the priest to ask women in the con- fessional—questions which the court holds are so obscene that they cannot even be repeated in public without violation of our criminal statutes? And finally, does not this case afford a most convincing illustration of the peril in restrictive legislation, showing how laws that were passed for the purpose of preventing the spread of immoral- ity can be so perverted as to become instruments of persecution by which pure, high-minded and noble men and women, who merely desire to ac- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 149 quaint the people with facts they feel should be known, are made to suffer by the enemies of free discussion? ^ The Case of Hon. Thomas E. Watson. The case of Hon. Thomas E. Watson affords another impressive illustration of how laws that restrict freedom of utterance and of the press can be used as engines of persecution in a way never intended by their framers. It shows also how those who hate the light of free discussion, those who wish to destroy the great bulwarks of our free democracy, desire to have these laws so amended as to enable them to further terrorize the press; by prosecuting any one who has the temerity to criticise politico-ecclesiastical Ro- manism when it wars on free schools and a free press. Who is Thomas E. Watson? Before considering the facts, it may be per- tinent to notice for a moment this victim of Rome's intense hatred. Thomas E. Watson was formerly a member of Congress, and as such he was the pioneer statesman in the ultimately successful effort to secure free rural mail delivery, as well as a prime mover in other important progressive legislation. He was later Vice-Presidential candidate on the People's Party ticket. In addition to his impor- tant service to the people's cause in the State, Mr. Watson is the author of a number of able historical and biographical works. His lives of Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon Bonaparte are perhaps the most important of his many volumes. In his political career and as an editor, he has courageously fought every form of graft and corruption and has been fearless whenever he believed it his duty to speak. On some questions he has antagonized a great number of high-minded 150 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. people, as, for example, in his opposition to So- cialism, to the foreign mission movement, and in his denunciation of the pardon of Leo Frank after the courts had condemned him. But though many people strongly differ from Mr. Watson, we be- lieve no fair-minded thinker will accuse him of in- sincerity or of failure to resolutely defend what he believes to be right and condemn what he be- lieves to be wrong. His attacks on corrupt cor- porate wealth and venal politicians have made him many bitter enemies in Georgia. . The facts in the important historical case we are now to consider are briefly as follows: About four years ago, Mr. Watson announced that among the forthcoming features of his mag- azine would be a series of papers dealing with the Roman Catholic hierachy. Immediately the American News Company notified his business manager that if he published these papers it w^ould cease to handle the magazine, of which it was then selling about eight thousand copies a month. This bQycott method, however, failed to deter Mr. Watson. Furthermore, he published much matter that revealed the organized effort of the Church of Rome to exalt Catholicism in the public imagination, especially at the na- tion’s capital, and give it something of the ap- pearance of a state church. His exposures of the history of the Church in the past and her mach- inations in America today created consterna- tion among the organized forces that are work- ing to make America “dominantly Catholic.” Finally he published, in Latin, the questions which Saint Alphonsus Liguori prescribes for priests to ask women in the confessional, and this was seized upon by the Secretary of the American Federation of Catholic Societies as a violation of the obscenity statutes. That this prosecution, which organized politico- ecclesiastical Romanism instigated, was not due to any sensitiveness of Catholics over the ob- scene character of the matter complained of, but was merely a subterfuge employed because Rome i THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 151 wished to crush the man whom the American News Company’s boycott had not frightened into silence, is evident from the fact that the alleged obscene utterances of the Roman Saint are being constantly sent out by the great authorized Catholic publication houses and furthermore, the exact reproduction of the matter published in Latin by Mr. Watson has for more than thirty years been going through the mails in the work by Father Chiniquy, entitled “The Priest, Woman and the Confessional,” with no one attempting to interfere with it. Now, on the pretext that this verbatim repro- duction of Saint Liguori’s instructions to priests, even though printed in Latin, was so obscene as to bring Mr. Watson under the law, the Cath- olics induced Anthony Comstock to prosecute the editor of “Watson’s Magazine.” When the case came up for trial before Judge Foster, October 21, 1913, it was promptly quashed, but in the spring of 1914, Mr. Watson was again indicted on the old charge, together with a new count relating to the publication of an account of an alleged immoral act by a priest. The Second Trial of Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson’s case was called for trial under the second indictment in the latter part of Novem- ber, 1915, at Augusta, Georgia. The defendant appeared as his own attorney. The case went to the jury on November 30th, and on the afternoon of December 1st the jury re- ported that it could not agree. According to the reports from Augusta, Georgia, published in the “Boston Herald” of December 2nd, jurors said, “The vote stood ten to two for acquittal from the first ballot to the last, and the foreman reported to the. court that the jury might remain here for thirty years, it would never reach a ver- dict.” Since Mr. Watson announced that he intended to point out the dangerous features of Romanism, 152 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. the clericals have waged a relentless war against him, as has been indicated by reports of the Secretary of the American Federation of Catholic Societies. Failing in boycott they resorted to the courts. The failure to convict in two trials, and the overwhelming majority for acquittal, show that as yet the powerful and sinister organized effort of politico-ecclesiastical Romanism has not been able wholly to destroy the vital free- dom of the press. But this persistent persecution of a prominent editor, statesman, author and publicist, by politi- co-ecclesiastical Romanism, savors of the old days and affords an impressive example of how legis- lation can be perverted from its intended func- tions, by seizing on 'technicalities, and in the .hands of interests bent on the ruin of an enemy can be made a powerful engine of persecution. \J A Vital Question. If the questions which Liguori prescribed for priests to ask maidens and married women in con- fession are so vile and obscene that the mere publication of them in Latin constitutes a vio- lation of our obscenity laws, who should be ( blamed for the offence? The man who in the interests of morality turns on the light? or the Roman Catholic Church, which not only sanc- tions the publication and dissemination of this obscene matter, but canonizes and honors with the degree of Doctor of Moral Theology the man who framed the questions? Can we have a better illustration of the dan- ger to sound morality of laws so framed as to en- able those who do not want the truth dissemi- nated to become persecutors of clean, high- minded scholars and prominent citizens? THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 153 The Determined War on the Constitutional Guar- antee of Freedom of Religious Discussion. We now come to notice another step in the campaign which politico-ecclesiastical Romanism is waging on the great bulwark of free democ- racy—liberty of speech and press. Through legis- lation, the enemies of the fundamental democra- tic theory of government now desire to strike at the constitutional guarantee of freedom of dis- cussion on religious questions. The following facts constitute such a startling revelation of the deadly hatred which the friends of the Papal theory of government entertain toward that theory which has made America the greatest and freest nation on earth, that no thinking patriot, no citizen of America who de- sires to preserve the freedom which error and evil fear and ever seek to destroy, can remain in- different after reading the confessions and noting the determined activity of those who have under- taken to make America “dominantly Catholic’ 7 by substituting the Papal for the democratic theory of government. In the year 1910, at the annual meeting of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, which was held at New Orleans, the following resolu- tion was passed: “ Resolved , That the Congress of the United States be earnestly requested to amend Section 3893 of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the mailing of ‘obscene, lewd, and las- civious’ literature, so that the same may include the mailing of books, papers, writings and prints which outrage religious convictions of our citi- zens, and contain scurrilous and slanderous at- tacks upon our faith.” When the Federation assembled in its tenth annual convention, which was held at Columbus, Ohio, in August, 1911, it gave fresh emphasis to the fact that organized Catholicism is in poli- 154 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. tics, by reaffirming its desire to sweepingly abridge the constitutional right of freedom of discussion, by passing the following resolution: “ Resolved , That the Federation of Catholic So- cieties do enter their solemn protest against the mailing or offering for sale of obscene literature, including under this title books, papers, writings and prints which outrage religious convictions of our citizens and contain scurrilous and slander- ous attacks upon our faith.” The “Bulletin of the American Federation of Catholic Societies” for October, 1911, published the following statement, which shows how deter- mined and active are the religio-politicals of the Roman Catholic Church, since it has become active in politics: “Mr. A. V. D. Waterson, Chairman of the Law Committee, took up the matter with Hon. J. Fran- cis Burke, a Catholic member of Congress. Mr. Burke informed the Federation that the extra session of Congress would hardly consider the matter, and . dvised that the matter be taken up next fall when the regular session of Congress will begin. We hope to be able to report at the next convention that such a measure has been passed by Congress, which will put a stop to the circulation, through the mails at least, of books and papers which defame religion and their spir- itual leaders.” So successful had been the organized effort of the religio-politicals in silencing the secular press, when it came to free discussion of vital religious questions, and inducing advertisers to withdraw from publications that fearlessly ex- posed the organized attempt of Rome to substi- tute the reactionary Papal theory for the pro- gressive free democratic theory of the fathers, that they evidently imagined they could be equally successful in inducing the Postmaster-General of the United States to defy or override the constitutional provision prohibiting interference with religious opinions. Happily for the cause of democracy, enlightenment and human rights, 1 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 155 the Postmaster-General was not ready to trample upon the constitutional guarantees, even to please the politicians who are in an organized way striving to make America “dominantly Cath- olic;” for at the annual convention of the Ameri- can Federation of Catholic Societies which met at Louisville, Kentucky, in August, 1912, the secretary read the following communication from Postmaster-General Frank H. Hitchcock, contain- ing a refusal and, by implication, a stinging re- buke: “I have to inform you that there is no pro- vision of law under which newspapers or other publications containing violent criticisms of any particular religious faith may be excluded from the mails, unless such criticism takes the form of personal slander, scurrility, or obscenity, in which case the publisher becomes amenable to the criminal laws of the United States, and may be fined or imprisoned, or both, and his publica- tion debarred from the mails. It is not probable that under our Federal Constitution, which pro- hibits interference with religious opinion in any way, a law could be passed restraining criticism of religious faiths.” Next the secretary sought to find out from the Postmaster-General what words could be added to the present statutes to reach papers that he claimed continually slandered and defamed the leaders of the Christian faith. Of course, the statutes that provide for both civil and criminal punishment for slander, defamation of character or libels, could easily and quickly be invoked if slander or libel had been indulged in. Again Mr. Hitchcock declined to give aid and comfort to the enemies of free speech and press, as will be seen from the following reply to the inquiries of the Federation’s official communication: _ “While such a policy on the part of any por- tion of the public press is to be deplored, never- theless, since your request involves a matter which is peculiarly within the province of the legislative branch of the government, I do not feel i 156 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. at liberty to make any suggestions as to the legislative policy to be pursued. Your Senators and Representatives in Congress would, no doubt, give careful consideration to your request.” Sadly the zealous secretary of the Federation of Catholic Societies was forced to observe: “From the above communications it appears that no law could be enacted under our Federal Constitution to stop the circulation of papers, etc., containing general violent criticisms of any particular faith.” But if national officials were not willing to over- ride the constitutional guarantees, and if laws could not be enacted that would destroy the free- dom that had proved so salutary since the birth of the Republic, other means must be found to compass the end; so in his report at the next an- nual meeting of the Federation which convened at Milwaukee, August, 1913, the secretary de- clared that: Catholic Contempt for Our Constitution. “Since no Federal law can be enacted, it is proposed to have State laws passed by which such scurrilous and slanderous publications can be brought to time.” Here we see a startling example of Catholic contempt for our Constitution, as a proposal is made to secure through State laws that which the Constitution forbids Congress to do. That Rome feels that in order to make Amer- ica “dominantly Catholic” she must undermine and overthrow the freedom that is so distasteful to Catholicism that it is nowhere permitted in Catholic lands, is further evidenced in the Con- gressional campaign which followed the failure of organized Catholicism to induce the Postoffice Department to override the constitutional rights of the press. Not only in the activity of the Federation of Catholic Societies and the Knights of Columbus, THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 157 that in government are warring against our press, but in mass-meetings of Roman Catholics, such as were held in Philadelphia and elsewhere in 1913, do we see the same intolerant spirit and the same hatred of free discussion that has blighted all Catholic lands and which, as we have seen, is already bearing its legitimate fruit in the nation-wide campaign of criminal lawlessness on the part of Knights of Columbus and other partisans of the Roman hierarchy. On June 1, 1913, the Catholics in Philadelphia got up a mass-meeting for the furtherance of the organized campaign to limit the freedom of the press, and in speaking of this meeting Rev. Hugh P. Garvey, a prominent Catholic leader in the mass-meeting, expressed in “The Catholic Standard and Times” of June 7th the earnest hope that the campaign would go on until “The Menace,” “The Appeal # to Reason,” “The Amer- ican Citizen” and other similar publications were excluded from the mails. The Determined Effort of Politico-Ecclesiastical Romanism to Establish a Bureaucratic Censorship of the Press. Early in 1914, Roman Catholic papers appealed to Catholics to write to the Postmaster-General, urging him to bar certain anti-Catholic publica- tions. The Solicitor-General for the Postoffice Department replied that under existing laws, as interpreted by the courts, the Postmaster-Gen- eral could not constitutionally exercise such cen- sorship. We have seen that the Postmaster-General de- clined to defy and override the Constitution at the request of the American Federation of Cath- olic Societies, and now the campaign of the Cath- olic press to supplement this organized demand had proved futile; so the next step resorted to was to deluge Congress with letters demanding legislation that would establish an autocratic 158 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. postal censorship, substituting the Papal and Russian bureaucratic theories and system for the theory and system of our free democracy, which provides that if publishers legally offend, they shall be proceeded against by constitutional meth- ods, through the courts. On December 8, 1914, the Feast of the Immac- ulate Conception of the Virgin Mary was selected as the day when all Catholics should write such letters to Congressmen as it was . hoped would accomplish this important and dangerous reac- tionary legislation. The following extract from the “Morning Star,” one of the great and authoritative Roman Cath- olic journals of America, is illustrative of the way the Catholic press * of the land urged its readers to further the methods of politico-ecclesi- astical Romanism: “All those Catholics who have not yet written to their Congressmen, Senators, or to the Post- master-General, in regard to the exclusion from the mails of the vicious publications which are being used in the present anti-Catholic campaign, should be sure to do so in the near future, fol- lowing up the agitation on Tuesday, December 8th, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. This day, which is the patronal day of the Church in the United States, was chosen as ‘Letter Day,’ when the voice of the Catholics in this country could be heard in a united protest against the continuation of conditions which at present exist, and in the demand for legislation in the form of an amendment to our postal laws providing means for properly dealing with such unscrupulous and lying sheets—threatening also as they do by their revolting stories the morality of many young people throughout our land.” Is Rome in Politics? Having now prepared the ground, as it were, the organized Catholics directed one of their faithful Congressmen to do the bidding of the THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 159 religio-politicals. The Brooklyn “Tablet” thus reveals the fact that it was a section of the American Federation of Catholic Societies—that great organization in the active formation of which so many of the leading Catholic Bishops of America were active instruments—that was re- sponsible for the bill introduced by Congressman Fitzgerald; for, in its issue of January 23, 1915, the “Tablet” says: “One of Brooklyn’s Catholic Congressmen, Hon. John J. Fitzgerald, spurred to action by the re- peated demands of the members of the Brooklyn Diocesan branch of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, has introduced in the House of Representatives a ‘Bill to Amend the Postal Laws/ H. R. No. 20644. If the bill is reported favorably and passes both houses, ‘The Menace/ and other indecent publications attacking the Church and spreading their filth broadcast through the agency of the United States Post- office, will be denied the privilege and will find their ability to breed anti-Catholic hatred curbed.”* The Fitzgerald and Gallivan Bills. The bill introduced by Hon. J. J. Fitzgerald, January 7, 1915, and known as H. R. No. 20644, reads as follows: *It is well to notice in passing that the meaning of terms in the Catholic mind is frequently entirely foreign to the meaning suggested to the normal Protestant mind. One is constantly encountering the word “filth” or “filthy,” when Catholics are attacking anti-Catholic publications, and knowing that the Catholics are ac- customed to draw from the Popes for condemnatory ex- pressions, we looked through some of the Papal declara- tions to find out if possible what the word “filth” meant when pronounced in infallible and irreformable ex cathedra utterances, and we found Pope Innocent III saying, at the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council, that “if a secular ruler, after due warning by the Church, neglects to purge his territory from the filth of heresy, let him be excommunicated by the metropoli- tan archbishop and the bishops of the Province.” Here we see what “filth” means to the Catholic mind, as ut- tered by the infallible head of the Church. 160 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled , That whenever it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Postmas- ter-General that any person is engaged, or repre- sents himself as engaged, in the business of pub- lishing any obscene or immoral books, pamphlets, pictures, prints, engravings, lithographs, photo- graphs, or other publications, matter, or thing of an indecent, immoral, scurrilous, or libelous char- acter and if such person shall, in the opinion of the Postmaster-General, endeavor to use the post- office for the promotion of such business, it is hereby declared that no letter, packet, parcel, newspaper, book, or other thing sent or sought to be sent through the postoffice by or on behalf of or to or on behalf of, such person shall be deemed mailable matter, and the Postmaster- General shall make the necessary rules and regu- lations to exclude such non-mailable matter from the mails.” On January 11, 1915, Hon. James A. Gallivan of Massachusetts introduced the bill known as H. R. No. 20780, reading as follows: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled , That whenever it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Postmas- ter-General that any person is engaged in the business of publishing any scandalous, scurrilous, indecent, or immoral books, pamphlets, pictures, prints, engravings, lithographs, photographs, or other publications which are, or are represented to be, a reflection on any form of religious wor- ship practiced or held sacred by any citizens of the United States, it is hereby declared that the Postmaster-General shall make the necessary rules and regulations to exclude such matter from the mails.” By these bills it will be observed that sweep- ing despotic power is delegated to one man, to sit in judgment on the press of the land and de- cide whether or not the mails may be used by THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 161 publications which in his fallible judgment may be considered as indecent, immoral, scurrilous, libelous, etc., or which reflect on any form of religious worship practiced by any citizen of the United States. Here it was proposed, at one stroke, to give bureaucratic power, such as cursed and blighted Russia, to an individual, to sit in judgment; instead of giving the publisher the right and the protection which any free and dem- ocratic land should always guarantee to every individual, whether publisher or not, the right of trial by jury and the benefits of judicial consid- eration. The Catholic Press and This Attack on the Whole- some Freedom of the Press. This effort of organized Rome to attack the freedom of the press in order to protect Roman Catholics against unfriendly criticism, naturally aroused the opposition of friends of free insti- tutions throughout the Republic, and a strong protest was made by leading thinkers against the favorable consideration of these un-American measures before the Committee on Postoffices and Post Roads, which was bitterly resented by the Catholic press; the “Catholic Standard and Times,” for example, characterizing this upris- ing of the best and most thoughtful and earnest- minded clergymen and others of the land as a protest “before the House Committee against at- tempts to stem the flow of filth.” The “Morning Star” of New Orleans, in an edi- torial on January 30th, expressed the hope that “the several Congressmen from this Catholic State, who owe their election to the suffrage of Catholic voters, will get over their scruples about liberty of the press. The vote on this bill,” con- tinues the “Morning Star,” “is of interest to every Catholic in the land, and when the roster is called, we hope that Catholics will sit up and take note of all who voted for and ’against the i bill. It is one of the most important bills intro- 1G2 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. duced into Congress for many a day, and of vital interest to Catholics. So let societies and indi- viduals flood Congress with letters, and let them not rest till it is made sure by congressional action.” Here is a characteristic threat, such as Roman Catholics are constantly making when there is any danger of statesmen standing resolutely for the American theory of democratic freedom, as against the Papal theory of intolerance, restric- tion and churchly aggression. The bill of Mr. Gallivan, it will be observed, would destroy all freedom of discussion on re- ligious matters, and thus completely nullify the constitutional guarantee. After quoting this bill, the “Morning Star” of February 6th says: “Every Catholic, individually, and every Cath- olic organization should therefore bestir them- selves in notifying Senators and Representatives that they stand for the passage of these bills. Let the deluge of letters of approval pour in upon Congressmen, and very soon the infamous scheme of blackmail upon the Catholic Church, its priesthood and sisterhoods, will be a thing of the past in this country.” If there had been any attempt at blackmail, any slander on the priesthood and the sister- hoods, or the Church itself, its champions and the wronged parties had and have the same methods of redress which every other citizen in the Republic enjoys. In its issue for February, “Truth,” the organ of the International Catholic Truth Society of New York, after praising the Fitzgerald bill, de- clares that “if the bill be reported favorably and pass both Houses, The Menace’ and other inde- cent publications attacking the Church and spreading filth broadcast through the agency of the United States Postoffice, will be denied the privilege and will find their ability to breed anti- Catholic hatred curbed.” The above is an additional illustration that it is the “filth of heresy,” to quote Innocent III, THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 163 that is in the minds of the religio-politicals of the Roman Catholic Church in their war against a free press. A Congressional Hearing of Historic Importance. The hearing and discussion of these bills before the Committee on Postoffices and Post Roads, and in Congress, constitutes one of the most impor- tant historic events since the establishment of the Republic; for they throw into bold relief the free democratic theory of government, on the one hand, and the Papal and Russian despotic bureau- cratic theory, on the other. Moreover, it affords a luminous and unanswer- able proof that the Roman Catholics of America, through the American Federation of Catholic So- cieties,' their press and their spokesmen in Con- gress, are seeking to force the substitution of the Papal theory of government, as voiced by Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X, for that established by our fathers for the preservation and development of free institutions and true democracy. Hon. David E. Finley Opposes the Proposed Legislation. Congressman David E. Finley, of South Caro- lina, as did several other speakers, showed that arbitrary power, which these bills would confer on the Postmaster-General, was subversive of free institutions. We personally for more than twenty years have insisted, in the pages of “The Arena,” “The Twentieth Century Magazine,” and elsewhere, that the increasing bureaucratic power of our government—a power that has time and again exercised functions that belong to the co- ordinate branches of government, is a supreme peril to democracy. This fact was emphasized by Congressman Finley in the following words: “We have a Postmaster-General today. He is in office now. He will go out at some future time. 164 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Who will be there five years from now or ten years from now we do not know. The power that is proposed to be lodged in the hands of the Post- master-General under that amendment should not be lodged in the hands of any one man in all this country. [Applause.] It should not be left to the decision of any one man, and he an executive officer and appointed by another man. So this proposed amendment, if you analyze it, means going back in a measure to the sedition laws, and we remember that the execution of those laws cost a great political party its existence. “Now, I am not in favor of scurrilous or obscene matter going through the mails. I am opposed to it, but I think when we legislate here for all the people of this country, each and every in- dividual should have redress somewhere, some place of appeal. Under that amendment an ipse dixit of whoever happens to be Postmaster-Gen- eral at the time is absolutely conclusive of what is and what is not objectionable under the pro- posed amendment.” Congressman J. A. Falconer, of Washington State, opposed the measure because, as he pointed out, “the common laws cover the point, and where any one who now sends this kind of literature through the mails is subject to the penalties of the laws now on the statute books.” He insisted that the bill was un-American, and he might have truthfully added that it is a part of the organized religio-political plan to substitute the theory of government of the Roman Catholic hierarchy for the democratic theory of free lands. At the hearing before the Committee, which was presided over by the Hon. John A. Moon of Tennessee, some very illuminating facts of far more than historic importance were elicited from the Roman Catholic Congressmen who were sponsors and defenders of the bill; while the chair- man and members of the committee, as well as many of the distinguished citizens who appeared in remonstrance, served to emphasize three great points: First, that the legislation proposed was THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 165 thoroughly un-American and inimical to the spirit of free institutions; second, that it was uncon- stitutional; and third, that it was entirely un- necessary. The following questions by Mr. Finley and Chairman Moon, and replies of Mr. Gallivan, author of one of the bills, will help us to under- stand the Catholic viewpoint: Mr. Finley: “Your bill 20780 would necessarily make the Postmaster-General the judge as to what was or was not a religious question ?” Mr. Gallivan: “Yes, sir.” The Chairman: “I want to get at the facts. You want the government, and by the govern- ment I mean the Postoffice Department, to have authority to intervene and stop publications that contain language of a character referred to in your bill.” Mr. Gallivan: “Exactly.” ^ The Chairman: “Then you want to make the Postmaster-General the sole arbiter in determin- ing that question?” Mr. Gallivan: “That is what I started out to do”. The Chairman: “Now that may be a religious question, a political question, or a social or scien- tific proposition of any kind where this language may be used. May it not?” Mr. Gallivan: “Yes, sir.” The Chairman: “Now what is your purpose in it? Is it to protect the individual or an associa- tion against whom such language is directed?” 166 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Mr. Gallivan: “What other purpose would the gentleman think I might have in mind?”****** The Chairman: “If that is true, are not the courts of this country open for that purpose, and cannot they all be protected ? When a man over- steps the bounds of legitimate free speech, can- not the courts handle him without the interven- tion of Congress by an act of this sort? “Is it not better if there be any wrong or injury done by publication or otherwise to any sort of an organization or individual, that that individual or organization should be permitted, as they now have the right to do, to step into the courts for protection and vindication, rather than to invoke the arbitrary action of a government official, and especially when that action is confined to the judgment of a single individual?” Catholic Admission that Bills Were to Interfere With Freedom of Religious Discussion. Congressman James P. Maher, who appeared in behalf of the proposed legislation, declared that there were about six papers against which the legislation was directed, mentioning “The Men- ace,” and “The Yellow-Jacket” as two of them. Continuing, he declared: “It is the practice to use the mails to circulate scandalous and libelous articles, and I believe, from letters which I have received and from per- sonal investigation of it, that it is a direct attack upon one particular religion, the Catholic Church. That in my judgment is the intent of these pub- lications. There are, I understand, 16,000,000 Catholics in this country, and there are approxi- mately 20,000 priests. I believe I voice their sentiments when I say they want protection THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 167 against the slanderous and scurrilous articles that are circulated through the mails.” Mr. Maher did not explain why the Catholics did not take advantage of the ample legislation on the statute books, if the Church and her priests were being slandered, but declared that: “it is my particular religion that is attacked and I feel it. We are told that this is not a fight ” The Chairman: “I want to say that these bills on their face do not disclose anything of that sort.” Mr. Maher: “I know they do not.” The Chairman : “That is the reason we are ask- ing these questions in order to see what really underlies the legislation.” Mr. Maher: “Well, I believe the bills on the face of them show what they intend to do, and if I were a member of the committee I think I could act in accordance with the intent of the bills as they were drawn, but I am stating some of the ” The Chairman: (Interposing) “I think you are right about that. The committee wants to know the facts.” Mr. Maher: “Well, I am giving them to you according to my knowledge of them.”****** Mr. Finley: “There is one question which I would like to ask you in regard to legislation of this character. Legislation as is proposed here would lodge with the Postmaster-General the final decision as to what was or was not a religion, and 168 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. of course following that, what was or was not a slander or a libel on that religion?” Mr. Maher: “I do not think that would be the question. I think the simple question would be as to what was or was not a slander or a libel.” Mr. Finley: “You would lodge the power to decide that in the Postmaster-General?” Mr. Maher: “Yes. And I think the party af- fected should have the right to appeal over the decision of the Postmaster-GeneraL” ) Mr. Finley: “Why not let him have the right to go into the courts in the first instance?” Mr. Maher: “Not being a lawyer, I would not be able to answer that.” Masterly Arraignment of the Fitzgerald and Gallivan Bills by Leading Protestants. Rev. R. H. McKim appeared as the representa- tive of the approximately three hundred Protes- tant clergymen of the city of Washington, who constitute the Federation of Pastors. He made a strong and telling address, opposing the legisla- tion because it was un-American, unconstitutional, unnecessary and revolutionary. Rev. R. H. McKim States the Position of the Friends of Democracy. In the course of his remarks he said: “I remember that a very illustrious member of the British Parliament, in discussing a certain bill in favor of temperance in some shape—I do not know exactly what—uttered this sentence: ‘I would rather see England free than England sober.’ And so we would rather see the press of the United States free than to see it clean, if we had to make THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 169 it clean by assaulting the liberty of the press, which is one of the fundamental principles of our land, and one of the most important of all the things to guard our liberties. $ $ * * * ^ “Then we are opposed to the bill further because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress can pass no law in limitation of the freedom of speech or of the press. Both these bills that are now under consideration are of that character. That cannot be denied; it has not been denied by the gentle- men who have defended those bills here this morn- ing. The fact is that both of the members of Congress who have fathered these bills have ad- mitted here today that they would be quite willing to see an amendment to the bill or to these bills providing that the party who is accused should have an opportunity, before he is punished, of be- ing heard in the courts of the land. “Now, sir, we are opposed to these bills also because they are really revolutionary in their character. They are contrary to the spirit of our institutions, in that they propose to put into the hands of one man—a government official, and that official not elected by the people of the United States, and not responsible to them direct- ly—to put into his hands the absolute power of deciding whether or not a particular individual or a particular organization or association is pub- lishing anything as a libel under this law. We feel that such a power as that is a tyrannical power and that it has the tendency to make of the Postmaster-General a czar. It is a power that not even the President of the United States ought to be intrusted with. We are opposed to this proposed legislation on that ground. We regard that as a very serious matter, indeed. One of these bills goes so far as to say that if such a publication is, or is represented to be, casting a reflection upon any form of religion or church. 170 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. the Postmaster-General not only has the power, but he is directed, commanded in that case, to exclude from the mails that particular publication. Was there ever such a proposition brought for- ward in the history of all this country, that some individual should be given the power if some- thing is represented to be of a certain character, that then he is directed and commanded to practi- cally exclude that person from his rights as an American citizen? What would you, gentlemen, think of legislation providing that if a judge has before him a man who is represented to be a thief, that that judge shall have the power to send such a man to jail without investigation and without trial? This is exactly an analogous case to that. “I have here a brief extract from a publication called the ‘Chronicle/ which is published under the name of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country. That nublication recently had in it the following editorial: “ ‘It is quite evident that if matter is published which is defamatory, false, and libelous, the suf- ferers have their recourse, as is perfectly just, through common law-suits and jury trials. More than this protection cannot be given to citizens, without subjecting the press to an arbitrary ad- ministrative interference which gravely inter- feres with the freedom of the press.’****** “I do not desire to say any more. I have men- tioned the principal objections in our minds and I think I have said sufficient to convince any open-minded gentleman present here this morn- ing of the fact that this proposed legislation is dangerous, that it involves an attack upon the freedom of the press, and an attack upon freedom of speech. And the day when that is done will mark the beginning of the destruction of Amer- ican liberty.” THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 171 Rev. G. F. Williams Shows that Anglo-Saxon Law is Ample to Protect Against Abuses. The Rev. G. F. Williams, of Washington City, delivered an extremely able protest, in the course of which he showed most clearly that existing laws were ample to protect the citizens through- out the Anglo-Saxon world. Even so high a dignitary as Cardinal Newman, when he defamed Father Achilli, could not escape the penalty of the law. On this point he said: How Cardinal Newman Was Convicted of Slander and Scurrility. “Cardinal Newman was once a clergyman of the Church of England, and after he left the Church of England, Father Achilli, of the Roman Church, left the Roman Catholic Church and be- came a Protestant clergyman. Cardinal Newman was brought up for trial for defaming Father Achilli. Judge Coleridge presided in the case. I have never in my life read such scurrility as Cardinal Newman dealt out to that poor man who had chosen to be free of the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing was hidden in the record of that suit against the Cardinal, and when he was upon the stand Judge Coleridge asked him how it was possible for a man, who once stood so high, to use such language and to use such scurrility against a man whom he had to face on the witness stand. It was the most scurrilous thing I have ever read, and the result was that Cardinal Newman lost the suit and was mulcted to the extent of £12,000, or $60,000. The charge by Judge Cole- ridge at that time I think ought to be published in this country, I think it would help this cause.” Mr. Gallivan: “What has that got to do with these bills?” Mr. Williams: “It has this to do with it: That it showed that the laws in existence were quite 172 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. sufficient to enable Father Achilli to get justice. * * * I simply want to say that in my opinion the courts have power fully sufficient to mete out justice to any man or organization which is defamed, and to give justice in every case.” Rev. W. R. Russell Exposes the Shallow Pretense of the Romanists. Rev. W. Russell Collins, secretary of the “Episcopal Recorder” of Philadelphia and the “Converted Catholic,” a magazine of New York City, delivered an extremely able address, from which the following is an extract: “I wish, sir, I had the power to give emphasis to all that the Rev. Dr. McKim has said. It has already been demonstrated that the attempt here is to divert the power of the courts to one man, and to give that one the jurisdiction which the courts now enjoy. I do not know the animus of it, except that it may be based upon the belief that it is possible sometimes to more easily in- fluence one man than it might be to influence a court. It might be an easier matter to prejudice the mind of a single man than it would be to prejudice the minds of a court or of a jury. Why Does Rome Ignore That Ten Thousand Dollar Challenge? “It has been brought out here, through ques- tioning, and reluctantly admitted, that behind this bill is a religious issue. It is the Roman Catholic Church making an attempt to defend it- self against something—we do not know what. But I notice that the Roman Catholic Church does not adopt nor accept means of defense that are put within its reach. There is a certain book pub- lished in this country which these gentlemen, the authors of these bills, would no doubt include in their definition of the terms obscene, libelous and scurrilous, in which the author brings tremendous THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 173 charges against individuals of the church which has been brought into question here, in the pre- face to which he makes an offer of $10,000 to be given to any man or to any organization that will disprove any one of his charges, and offers to deliver up to such man or organization the plates of his book for destruction; but not a single mem- ber of the organization which is now appealing for redress here, has ever come forward to make any attempt to claim that $10,000; yet under this proposed law undoubtedly an attempt would be made to exclude that book from the mails as be- ing scurrilous.” Catholics Circulate Through the Mails Literature That the Courts Hold to be Obscene. "Let me tell you how the operation of this law might affect some people. Say I am engaged in a controversial question with a church which has different views from mine. I declare that its theological teachings are a lie. They might bring me up as giving expression to a libelous utterance. One man has to determine whether I have com- mitted a libel or not, and I have no benefit of court. "There is a certain standard theology of the Roman Catholic Church, known as the Moral Theology of Liguori,—Saint Liguori,—published in Latin, in three volumes, by the firm of Benzi- ger Brothers, publishers of Roman Catholic pub- lications in New York City, which deals with the questions of sex that have been repeatedly re- ferred to here by the advocates of these bills, and this and similar publications have been declared, by those who are not of that belief, to be the most indecent, obscene, and immoral publications in the world. They are permitted to be mailed through the United States mail. If my memory serves me correctly, about three years ago an attempt was made in this country to suppress a publication for publishing in the original Latin, a 174 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. part of the Liguorian Moral Theology, and the publisher was tried in the courts for publishing and transmitting through the mail obscene litera- ture; and this became a notable case throughout the country. “In other words, the standard theology of the Roman Catholic Church is presented to us in this country, in the courts, as indecent, immoral, and obscene literature.” Dr. Collins would not interfere with even sedi- tious literature, such as a popular Roman Catholic paper indulged in. “Now I want to take up a hypothetical case. I do not know whether it would be covered by this bill or not. I think if this bill were to be adopted, that the word seditious should be included in its terms. “Suppose that a certain editor should declare, in his paper, that if there were to come, at any time, a clash between the government of the United States and another sovereign power, which sovereign power this editor recognizes as greater and of higher authority than that of the govern- ment of the United States,—suppose he should declare that in such a case he and the people whom he represents would say, “To hell with the government of the United States,”-—is there any law which would prevent that seditious publica- tion from going through the mails? No; I would not vote for a bill to prevent it. I would rather that a man, the editor, for instance, of the “Western Watchman,” a Roman Catholic news- paper, should say that, than to limit his freedom of speech. I am glad to hear him express his opinion. I am glad to know that he is not a loyal citizen of the United States, but that he recog- nizes the sovereignty of the papal state. The Greater Papal Sovereignty. “One of the gentlemen here (Mr. Gallivan) put up the cry that certain literature published in the last campaign had the result of defeating forty- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 175 eight Democratic candidates for Congress. I do not know what his argument is, exactly, unless it be that these papers were opposed to the election of those men. I must assume that, as the gentleman declares himself to be a Roman Catholic, they were Roman Catholics also. * * * “These papers in the last campaign were op- posed to the men who were defeated, because those men, bv their religious profession, acknowl- edge that a certain man, who is sovereign of the papal states, is sovereign of the world, and that his sovereignty is greater than that of the United States; and there is a fear that their loyalty as representatives of the government of the United States cannot be trusted.” Mr. Gallivan: “I wish you would right now name one of those men who made this declara- tion, that he acknowledged any other sovereign power than the sovereign power of the United States. I wish you would name right now one candidate for Congress, Democrat, Republican, or a member of any other party, who made such a declaration. Name one of them.” Dr. Collins: “I would like to ask you if you can give me a declaration of your own religion.” Mr. Gallivan: “I am a Roman Catholic, and proud of it.” The Teaching of the Roman Church. Dr. Cpllins: “Do you not acknowledge that the Pope is the sovereign ruler of heaven, earth, and hell, and all temporalities, as well as spirituali- ties?” _ Mr. Gallivan: “My answer to this man's ques- tion is that he is temporarily insane, or he would not ask me that question.” Dr. Collins: “Then, sir, the theology of the Roman Catholic Church is insane, for that is what the theology of the Roman Church teaches. 176 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Why the Roman Catholic Church is a Menace to Free Democracy. “No other church in Christendom claims juris- diction over the civil authority, except that church. The Protestant church is not in the same position. It claims no jurisdiction over the State. It does not claim to have the right of jurisdiction over the State. The Roman Catholic Church does claim the right of jurisdiction over the State; and the cry of the Pope today is that he is deprived of his right in many countries, because he is no longer allowed to exercise the jurisdiction in those countries which he once exercised. He will not come out of the Vatican, because he claims to be a prisoner there, and because, if he should do so, the moment he makes his egress from the Vati- can grounds, his feet tread upon soil over which he should be sovereign, and of his sovereignty over which he has been deprived. “No other church claims what the Papal Church claims, and without any bitterness at all, many Americans feel that, with that church professing that doctrine, it is not wise to put the govern- ment of this country into the hands of those representatives who profess allegiance to that church.” The Editor of “The Protestant Magazine.” The accomplished and scholarly editor of “The Protestant Magazine” of Washington, D. C., made a notable address from which we take the follow- ing paragraphs: “Mr. Fitzgerald’s bill would invest one man—who is himself not elected by the people, but appointed to his position—with the power to destroy the business of a publisher without affording any opportunity for trial by jury according to regular court practice. The punishment which may be inflicted upon a oublisher by the Postmaster-Gen- eral under the provision of this bill is most severe, absolutely depriving him of the privilege of THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 177 using the United States mails even for legitimate purposes. I submit that the giving of such power into the hands of one man, who is himself not responsible to the people, is a long step toward tyrannical power over the press, and that it could bring only unmitigated evil to the country. * * * “The bill introduced by Mr. Gallivan, if strictly construed, would absolutely prohibit the expres- sion of any adverse criticism upon any religious tenet whatsoever. Certainly no court in the country would hold such a law as constitutional in view of the first amendment to the Constitu- tion, which provides that 1 Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech or of the press/ “This proposed legislation is entirely inde- fensible, inasmuch as it enables Congress to exer- cise indirectly a power which was not conferred upon it either directly or indirectly by the Consti- tution; namely, the power to control the press in favor of religion. I maintain that Congress has no right of control over religion of any kind as such, and can properly deal only with men as citizens of this world, protecting them in the exercise of their rights as citizens, and merely preventing them from interfering with the equal rights of other citizens. * * * * “These bills would establish a government cen- sorship of the press which would be fatal to free discussion, and would prevent that untrammeled expression of opinion which is vitally essential to the life of the republic. “While these bills are clothed in general terms, it is yet well known that they are designed to secure the exclusion from the United States mails of certain publications which are especially offen- sive to Roman Catholics.” A 178 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Freedom of the Press Has Stood the Test of Reason and Time. Professor C. S. Longacre, of Washington, in the course of an extremely thoughtful protest against the legislation, said: “The bill introduced by Mr. Fitzgerald does not prohibit anything that is not already prohibited by civil statute, but it seeks to make the Post- master-General not only an absolute censor of the press, but the judge, jury, prosecuting attorney, and sole witness, without giving the defendant a chance of trial to disprove the charges of libel or slander. It establishes an autocratic system of government. “The word scurrilous as applied in the present statutes is used in an accommodated sense, and cannot be applied in a general way to what might be considered a political or religious insult. Both these bills apply the term scurrilous in a general sense, and consequently would debar every news- paper or periodical from the mails which casts any reflection upon the policies of any political party as well as a reflection upon any form of religious worship, provided ‘any citizen of the United States’ represented such publications to be an insult to his political or religious faith and prac- tice. “The freedom of the press as provided in the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution has stood the test of reason and of time. The benign blessings which have accrued therefrom have made our government and nation the most pro- gressive, enlightened, and peaceful between the two poles on the six continents. Another speaker whose statements were well calculated to impress the committee was the Rev. Hi G. England, of the Episcopal Church. Dr. England described himself as a “Priest of the Holy Catholic Church,” which led to the follow- ing question and reply: THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 179 The Chairman: “I did not know the Episcopal Church used the word ‘priest’ with reference to her ministry.” Dr. England: “Yes, sir, the Protestant Episco- pal Church, and our churches in England, Ire- land, and Scotland, the Church of England, and the Church of Ireland, claim that at the Reforma- tion in 1534 A. D. they restored the original Catholic government of the Church as organized by our Lord Jesus Christ, the original and primi- tive Catholic faith. “As a Catholic Church having bishops, priests, and deacons, we protest against the Papal addi- tions which were added after the year 606 A. D. There was no Pope in the modem sense before 606 A. D.” Mr. Fitzgerald: “Your Church is called the An- glican Catholic Church, and you do not recognize the authority of the Pope. You have no connec- tion with the Roman Catholic Church.” Dr. England: “Yes, sir, we are a part of the Anglican Catholic Church, and do not believe there was any Pope in the early Catholic Church, nor do we believe the primitive Catholic faith prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, taught tran- substantiation, paid money for masses to pray people out of purgatory, prayed before images, taught the celibacy of the priesthood, or the ob- ligatory confessional. We teach nothing but what is taught in the New Testament. Mr. Chairman,* as a priest of the Catholic Church and an officer of a patriotic society which has nearly a million members in the United States, I protest against the passage of these bills as un-American and un- necessary. There is no demand from any but Roman Catholics for such laws. Considerable has been said about the “Menace” and other papers. I have been receiving the “Menace” for three years. Much stress has been laid upon these papers as scandalous, scurrilous, indecent, and immoral, but 180 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. there seems to be considerable difference of opin- ion as to what is indecent. I would not be in favor of any really indecent papers or magazines going through the mail, and the Postmaster Gen- eral has sufficient power at the present time to deal with indecent papers. * * * This appli- cation to Congress to stop the “Menace” from using the mails appeals to me as a baby act. Why is not the issue met fairly and squarely? If the “Menace” is printing the truth, which many papers are afraid to publish, the Roman Catholic Church should clean up, and not plead the baby act. This country is no place for ecclesiastical jails; every institution should be open to the light of day, and if any inmate wishes to leave, unless sen- tenced by a court of law, he should be permitted to do so. * * * I sincerely hope, Mr. Chair- man, that this honorable committee will never re- port favorably to the Congress of the United States such laws as these, which infringe upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I do not believe in unbridled license, Mr. Chairman, but would protect the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.” Legislation That Would Check Progress and Curse Protestant, Jew and Catholic Alike. Rev. Clarence A. Vincent, of the Mount Pleas- ant Congregational Church of Washington, but whose legal residence is Massachusetts, appeared representing nearly 800,000 Congregationalists, ‘the Protestant Federation of Massachusetts, and other bodies. He declared that: “These bills would turn the wheels of progress back centuries. They would destroy our liber- ties. They would curse Protestants, Jews and Catholics alike.” Neither of these bills passed Congress, but all indications point to the fact that there is a set- tled determination on the part of politico-ecclesi- astical Romanism to bring all its multitudinous THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 181 engines and influences to bear in the attempt to secure such legislation when Congress again as- sembles. The American Federation of Catholic Societies, in whose organization so many prominent bishops and dignitaries of the Church were so active, for several years, as has been indicated, has been carrying forward an increasingly aggressive cam- paign along political lines. It is thoroughly evi- dent that Rome realizes that in order to make America “dominantly Catholic,” she must destroy the freedom of speech and discussion which has existed since the foundation of the Republic. It is not strange, therefore, that those who believe in the fundamental bulwarks of our free insti- tutions, those who believe in the free democracy of the fathers, should oppose the militant repre- sentatives of the Church whose authorita- tive heads uphold the union of Church and State while opposing the theory of popular sovereignty, or the people as the supreme source of govern- ment, the freedom of speech, press and assembly as taught by the author of the Declaration of Independence, and popular secular education. 182 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. PART V. Some Further Facts for Patriots. STATISTICAL DATA OF IMPORTANCE. More Than Seventy Million More Non-Catholics Than Catholics. America is overwhelmingly non-Catholic. This is a truth that is perfectly obvious to all persons who stop to consider the facts. There are in me United States between ninety and one hundred million people. The Catholics claim seventeen mil- lion, so if we grant this liberal figure and place that of the population at the minimum of ninety million, we have seventy-three million non-Catho- lics as against seventeen million Catholics. Over 11,500,000 More Communicants of Non- Catholic Than Catholic Fellowships. The most painstaking, impartial and complete recent religious statistical data is found in the Bulletin of Church Statistics for 1914, prepared under the careful supervision of Dr. H. K. Car- roll, late special agent of the United States Cen- sus, and published under the auspices of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America. The following statistics are taken from this Bul- letin : 183THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Protestant Bodies. Number Denomination. of Communicants Adventists 98,822 Baptists 6,129,467 Dunkard Brethren 119,460 Plymouth Brethren 10,566 River Brethren 4,903 Christadelphians 1,412 Christians 102,902 Christian Catholic (Dowie) 5,865 Christian Scientists 85,096 Christian Union 14,807 Church of God 41,475 Churches of the Living God 4,286 Churches of the New Jerusalem. 9,601 Communistic Societies 2,272 Congregational 748,340 Disciples of Christ 1,519,369 Evangelical Bodies 187,045 Faith Associations 9,572 Free Christian Zion Church 1,835 Friends 124,216 German Evangelical Protestant 34,704 German Evangelical Synod 261,488 Latter-Day Saints 356,000 Lutherans. 2,388,722 Scandinavian Evangelical 72,900 Mennonites 57,337 Methodists 7,125,069 Moravian Bodies 20,463 Pentecostal Bodies 23,937 Presbyterians. . 2,027,598 Protestant Episcopal 997,407 Reformed 463,686 184 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Reformed Catholic 3,250 Salvationists 27,474 Schwenkelders. 1,000 Social Brethren 1,262 Society for Ethical Culture 2,450 Spiritualists 200,000 United Brethren 328,099 Unitarians 70,542 Universalists 51,716 Independent Congregations 48,673 Total Protestant Communicants 23,785,088 Among the non-Catholic religious bodies not in- cluded above are the Jews, who, according to the Jewish Year-Book of 1910, are estimated to num- ber over 1,900,000, making a total of 25,685,088 non-Catholic religious communicants. Catholic Bodies. Number Denomination of Communicants Catholic Apostolic 4,927 Eastern Catholic 438,500 Western Catholic, including Roman and Polish 13,673,787 Total Catholic Communicants 14,117,214 It will be noted that the total number of Catho- lics, which include the Apostolic, Eastern and Western communions, aggregates 14,117,214, of which 13,673,787 are members of the Roman and Polish Catholic Churches, which recognize the Pope as head of the Church. Here it will be seen that even after counting the more than four hun- dred thousand Catholics who do not recognize the Papal authority, we have but 14,117,214, against THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 185 non-Catholic religious communicants numbering 25,685,088, or over 11,500,000 more non-Catholies who are communicants of some religious organi- zation than there are Catholic communicants. The Catholics claim seventeen million, and in refer- ence to the difference between the carefully pre- pared statistics of Dr. Carroll and those of the Catholic Directory, Dr. Carroll makes the follow- ing note in his latest bulletin : A Word About Catholic Statistics. “It is necessary to give a word of explanation concerning the figures for the Roman Catholic Church in the column of communicants. The ‘Official Catholic Directory’ reports only ‘popula- tion/ which includes with communicants the un- confirmed baptized; that is, children who have not been admitted to their first communion. The rule adopted in the census of 1890, and followed in that of 1906, deducts 15 per cent from Catholic population and sets down the remaining 85 per cent as communicants. Representatives of that Church object to the process, but as the rule to report only members or communicants is applied to all other denominations, there is obviously no convenient way of making an exception in this case. It should also be said that the figures for ‘population’ are for a large number of dioceses and archdioceses estimates, given in round num- bers, as, for example, Baltimore, 261,000; Boston, 900,000; Cincinnati, 200,000.” Statistics of the Great Religious Creeds of the World. Christianity 564,510,000 followers Confucianism, and worship of ancestors 300,830,000 followers Hindooism. 220,000,000 followers Mohammedanism 210,540,000 followers 186 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Buddhism 221,825,000 followers Judaism 13,052,846 followers Animism 158,270,000 followers Major Division of Christian Creeds. Roman Catholic Church 272,860,000 followers Protestant Churches 171,650,000 followers Eastern Churches 120,000,000 followers UNTAXED CHURCH PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES. The census of 1890 gave the church property in the United States as worth $679,426,489. In 1906, according to the census, it had risen in value to $1,257,575,867. Thus, in sixteen years it had advanced almost double in value. It will be seen that church property is increas- ing by leaps and bounds—increasing far out of proportion to the growth in membership of the various churches. Untaxed Church Property in Greater New York City. At the close of 1915 the church property in the five boroughs of Greater New York amounts to $244,445,955. At the rate of increase that has marked recent decades, it is conservative to esti- mate the value of church property in the United States at the present time to be not less than one and one-half billion dollars. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 187 James A. Garfield’s Advocacy of Taxation of Church Property. On June 22, 1874, James A. Garfield, on the floor of Congress said: “The divorce between the Church and the State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no church property, anywhere, in any State, or in the nation, should be exempted from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a church tax upon the whole community.” President Grant on Taxation of Church Property. President Grant, in his annual message in 1875, said : “In a growing country, where real estate en- hances so rapidly with time as in the United States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain real estate with- out taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property as here alluded to without taxation, may lead to sequestration without constitutional authority and through blood. I would suggest taxation of all property equally.” 188 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MARRIAGE QUESTION, INCLUDING THE LEGISLATION OF POPE PIUS X KNOWN AS “NE TEMERB.”* Since the publication of the Decretum Grati- anum, c. 28, q. 1, in the twelfth century, dispar- ity of worship (disparitas cultus) became a diri- ment hindrance to marriages. Marriages con- tracted between Catholics and infidels, unbaptized persons, were and are regarded as mere concubi- nages, unless a dispensation from the Roman See has been or is being given. Marriages between Catholics and heretics were and are regarded valid but illicit, where an ecclesi- astical dispensation has not been granted. And one of the conditions for granting dispensation for a mixed marriage is the guarantee given by the heretical party of the marriage to have all the children baptized and confirmed in the Catholic religion. The Council of Trullo, held in the seventh cen- tury (c. 72) declared marriages between Catholics and heretics null and void. Hence their union was officially branded concubinage. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) declared all matrimonial unions null and void unless entered into before the ecclesiastical authority. Clandestine marriages are marriages not so contracted. However, this legislation of the Coun- cil of Trent was in some countries very bitterly opposed by Protestants, and so it was found to be advisable not to publish the Tridentine decree, and consequently where these decrees were not legally published clandestine marriages are looked upon by the Church as valid and not as concubinage. In Holland and Belgium clandestine mixed mar- riages were declared valid by special order of Pope Benedict XIV (November 4, 1741). *See article on Marriage, by W. Fanning, Jesuit, in Catholic Encyclopedia. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 189 Pope Pius VI, in 1785, issued a similar decree for Ireland, and gradually the Benedictine dis- pensation was extended to various localities in Austria and Germany, provided no religious splen- dor was used. In some states of Germany a law was enacted requiring the boys born of mixed marriages to embrace the religion of the father, the girls the religion of the mother. The Popes, without betraying their sacred trust, for fear of incurring greater evils, and while ut- terly condemning such a law, lent a passive as- sistance to the celebration of marriages entered into under that law. Pius IX (February 17, 1864) issued an in- struction saying that “in places where a heretical preacher occupied the position of a civil magis- trate and the laws of the country required mar- riages to be entered into before him in order that certain legal effects may follow, it is permitted to the Catholic party to appear before him, either before or after the marriage has taken place in presence of the parish priest. If, however, the heretical minister is held to be discharging a religious duty in such witnessing of a marriage, then it is unlawful for a Catholic to renew con- tract before him (or to give consent in the first place), as this would be a communion in sacred things and an implicit yielding to heresy. Parish priests are also reminded that it is their strict duty to tell Catholics who ask for information that such going before a minister in a religious capacity is unlawful, and that they thereby sub- ject themselves to ecclesiastical censures (excom- munication, interdict, etc.). “Where, however, the priest is not asked and he has reason to fear that his admonitions will prove unavailing, he may keep his peace provided there be no scandal, and the other conditions re- quired by the Church be fulfilled.” This shows the casuistic and expediency—and not principle— loving tactics of the Roman Church. “It is a great crime to be found out.” 190 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pius X’s Marriage Legislation, “Ne Temere.” Pope Pius X ordered the legislation entitled “Ne Temere” to go into effect April 18, 1908. By this decree all marriages everywhere in the Latin Church, between Catholics and non-Catho- lics, are invalid unless they take place in the pres" ence of an accredited priest and two witnesses, and this even in countries where the Tridentine law was not binding. By a later decree, “Provida,” the Holy See exempted Germany from the new legislation. Undoubtedly this was for prudential reasons, as Germany will not permit any reflections upon her citizens, such as the Church here makes upon the millions of intelligent Protestants. By inference, all Protestant marriages are re- garded by the Roman Church as concubinage. FACTS ABOUT MEXICO. So much has been said about the persecutions and outrages practiced >on Mexican priests and nuns by the revolutionary forces since the assas- sination of Madero; so severe have been the de- nunciation of the Laws of Reform of Benito Juarez, and so glowing have been the pen-pic- tures of the old order which preceded the revo- lution of 1857 that persons ignorant of history might easily be completely misled by the wealth of misinformation that has been scattered broad- cast on the wings of impassioned and florid rhet- oric. Mexico When Catholicism Was Dominant. From the days of the Conquest through all the centuries that followed the overthrow of the Aztecs, the Roman Catholic Church was domi- nant. It early became as rich as it was power- ful. In religion it was supreme. In education it was in complete control. In government, woe THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 191 to the ruler or even the priest who, like Hidalgo, strove to voice the liberal aspirations of the pro- gressive nations or sought for a juster social order for the oppressed and ignorant masses. Here, if anywhere, the student of history would necessarily find the full flower of, not only union of Church and State, so dear to the Papal heart, but the result of the religion on the life, educa- tion and expanding intelligence of the people. While Protestant United States was welcoming Catholics and giving full protection to them and all other faiths, the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Mexico, true to its theory of government, its traditions and arrogant pretense of being the only true Church, refused to permit the people to worship God in other than the Catholic way. Do you question this? Then read the follow- ing, which was a part of the Constitution of Mex- ico until the great liberator and reformer, Juarez, overthrew the religious despotism of the Cath- olic Church in Mexico: “The* religion of the Mexican people is and shall be perpetually the Roman Catholic Apos- tolic. The nation shall protect it by wise and just laws, and shall forbid the exercise of any other.” It Was Catholics Who Overthrew Politico-Eccle- siastical Romanism in Mexico. The great revolution that hurled the hitherto all-powerful Church from the seat of the mighty was not the work of wicked heretics, for no Prot- estant religion had been permitted. No; it was a Catholic people, who for hundreds of years had been nourished on the Catholic religion and the Catholic religion alone, who, finding at length the despotism of the hierarchy intolerable, arose in their might and overthrew clerical supremacy, and enacted legislation the drastic character of which clearly showed how terrible was the pop- ular resentment and how fearful the revolution- 192 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. ists must have believed the wrongs, injustice and oppression to have been, to make a nation wholly Catholic visit such punishment on those whom they had for centuries been taught abjectly to obey. Mexico After the Overthrow of Clericalism. What of the material history after the adop- tion of the liberal Constitution destroying the old religious despotism and granting freedom of thought and liberty of religious belief? Mexico, from the adoption of the new and liberal Con- stitution, entered on an era of development, growth, progress and prosperity such as was never before known in her history. Law and order also reigned as never before, and this con- dition continued until clerical intriguers became active in politics, and commercial exploitation of the masses brought about unrest and revolt, that overthrew the Diaz government. This was fol- lowed by the shameful assassination of Madero, after he had failed to meet the hopes and expec- tations of the clericals. A Prominent Mexican Statesman on the Situation. One of the most dispassionate and informing papers on the Mexican situation that has ap- peared in the United States was written by Hon- orable Luis Cabrera, a member of the provisional Cabinet of Carranza, and was published as a lead- ing paper in the “Forum” for August, 1915. In this contribution Senor Cabrera gives the follow- ing historical facts and their bearing on the Mexican situation as it relates to the clericals at the present time: “In Mexico, ninety-nine per cent of the popu- lation profess the Roman Catholic faith, and, therefore, the influence of the Catholic clergy in religious matters has no counterbalance of any sort. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 193 “In the United States there are other Churches which counterbalance the influence of the Cath- olic Church. On the other hand, the Catholic Church in the United States does not hold un- limited sway over society, nor can it attain un- controllable political power; the very education of the American people has prevented Rome from exercising so far the influence which it exercises in other countries. “Before the war of the Reform (1856 to 1859), the Catholic Church was the strongest temporal power existing in Mexico, and the laws of the Reform enacted during that period all tended to deprive the Church of its power and bring about the absolute independence of Church and State. “The laws of the Reform are a collection of rules passed previous to 1860, with the aim of depriving the Catholic Church of its temporal power; and these rules have remained effective, because the conditions which then demanded their enactment still prevail and still make it neces- sary that the laws should remain in force. $ $ $ $ ^ ^ “At the present time there are precepts con- tained in the Mexican Constitution which corre- spond to those laws of the Reform, and accord- ing to that Constitution, all the laws and all the authorities of the country must enforce the ful- filment of those laws. * ^ ^ sH “The aim of the Constitutionalist Government, with regard to the Mexican Catholic Church, is to enforce the strict observance of the laws known as laws of the Reform, which up to the present time have been disregarded. The Constitutional- ist Government demands the fulfilment of these laws, because they form an integral part of the Mexican Constitution. These laws must be main- 194 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. tained, because the causes which demanded their enactment are still prevalent in the country. “The Catholic party is, in a nutshell, the polit- ical organization of the Catholic Church of Mex- ico. This single fact constitutes a peril for dem- ocratic institutions, and was naturally bound to be looked upon with great disfavor by the anti- re-electionist party, first, and later by the Con- stitutionalist party.” The Catholics, whenever and wherever they can gain control of government, seek union of Church and State, with the Church dominant in religion, education and many other matters. This makes the Catholic Church, sooner or later, a political organization that imperils freedom of religion, of speech, press and popular assembly, as well as undenominational education. It was the Catholic clergy, in their sermons, in the confessional, and in their correspondence, who proved to be the most effective enemy of the Constitutional forces in the cities. On this point Senor Cabrera observes: “The strongest armed resistance that the Con- stitutionalist party encountered in the cities, in the form of social defense, was not an opposition caused by the sympathy which the residents of the cities might have experienced in favor of Huerta, but it originated in the antipathy which had been created against the Constitutionalist forces, whom the Catholic clergy on all occasions represented as bandits who were intent on seiz- ing the towns solely for purposes of plunder, theft, violation of women, and murder. This opinion had its source in sermons, in the confes- sionals, and in an extensive correspondence, proofs of which have been secured.” * * * jjj * * “Since the triumph of the Revolution, there has been on the part of the Constitutionalist Government no other aim with regard to the THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 195 clergy than that of restricting them within the limits of their faculties and of their spiritual mission, that of making effective the separation of the Church and the State, and of keeping the clergy from taking any participation, as a re- ligious institution, in our political questions. ,****** “It is unnecessary to repeat that the Consti- tutionalist Government itself has never pretended to interfere in religious matters, or to restrain in any manner the religious liberty of the Mex- ican people. The Constitutionalist Government does not propose to establish laws which affect religion, nor does it in any way propose to re- strict religious practices.” Our Federal Administration pursued a truly democratic course and one that required much moral courage in resisting the pressure brought by the hierarchy, the American Federation of Catholic Societies and the Romanized press, which unitedly sought to prevent the recognition of Carranza, the successful statesman-leader who apparently most thoroughly represents the as- pirations of the Mexican people. RELICS, MEDALS AND BADGES. Mark Twain, in “Innocence Abroad,” empha- sizes, in his inimitably humorous way, the pious frauds that for centuries have deluded the cred- ulous masses among Roman Catholics, who, by virtue of the Index, have been prevented from keeping abreast of the advancing civilization of the age. # The multitudinous “true nails” that were shown him, taken from the cross on which Christ was crucified, and the great amount of lumber he en- countered first and last, which was shown at vari- ous places as parts of the “true cross” on which Jesus was nailed, excited his wonder while stim- ulating his sense of humor. 196 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. In his scholarly work entitled “Popery; The Foe of the Church and of the Republic,” Reverend Joseph S. Van Dyke, A.M., has thus described this amazing appeal of Rome to the credulity of her children: “The early Christians, it would seem, must have been particularly careful to preserve the bones of their dead. In the Cathedral of St. Peter, at Rome, they have an arm of St. Lazarus; a finger and arm of St. Ann, the Holy Virgin’s Mother; and the head of St. Dennis, which he caught up and carried the distance of two miles after it had been cut off. In France they have four heads of John the Baptist. In Spain, France and Flanders they have eight arms of St. Mat- thew! and three of St. Luke! In the Lateran Church, in Rome, they have the entire heads of St. Peter and St. Paul; and in the convent of St. Augustine, at Bilboa, the holy monks have a large part of Peter’s head, and the Franciscans a large part of Paul’s. At Burgos they have the tail of Balaam’s ass, a part of the body of St. Mark, and an arm and finger of St. Ann, At Aix-la-Chappelle they have two teeth of St. Thomas; part of an arm of St. Simeon; a tooth of St. Catherine; a rib of St. Stephen; a shoulder blade and leg bone of St. Mary Magdalene; oil from the bones of St. Elizabeth; bones of Sts. Andrew, James, Matthias, Luke, Mark, Timo- theus and John the Baptist. Perhaps it is for the purpose of carrying all these sacred relics that Rome has five legs of the ass upon which our Savior rode into Jerusalem. “Nor are bones their only precious mementos. In almost every chapel in Europe may be found pieces of the cross on which our Lord was cruci- fied.” This relic worship and the cultivation of belief in the magic power of objects that are supposed to have been blessed is not merely a thing of the past with the Roman Catholic. Nor is it con- fined to Europe. The “Messenger of the Sacred Heart” is a THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 197 Roman Catholic journal edited by the Jesuit fathers and published monthly by the central office of their Society in New York City. The officers are Reverend John H. O’Rourke, J.S., President; Reverend John Corbett, J.S., Secre- tary, and Claude Ramaz, J.S., Treasurer. In this authoritative Roman Catholic magazine for Oc- tober, 1915, we find, in its important department called “Thanksgiving,” numerous wonder stories associated with the use of miraculous medals, Lourdes water, badges of the Sacred Heart, etc. The following, for example, is from the opening letter in this department: “My son, 17 years old, was struck by a rock and had his skull fractured. An immediate oper- ation was necessary; but the doctors held' out no hope for me. * * * A second operation was nec- essary and even a great specialist who was called in gave him up. The doctors tried every means in vain to stop the convulsions until, after even my last fragment of hope was shattered, my friend gave me a miraculous medal and a bottle of Lourdes water. I put the medal on him, blessed him with the Lourdes water, put it on his wound and immediately the convulsions stopped. My son is nearly entirely recovered and is coming home tomorrow.” In many instances the devout Catholics, accord- ing to this prominent Jesuit publication, prom- ised that if their desires were granted to have mass said, which would naturally make glad the hearts of the priests, as the revenue would there- by be necessarily increased. In some cases the badges of the Sacred Heart were used. Here are some of the benefits that the correspondents im- agined came as a result of theif actions: Saved from prison; situation obtained; success in con- test; success with incubator; increase in salary; rooms rented; fair weather; saved from flood; protected from rain; calf saved; cross found; money obtained; mules cured; horses protected; scruples overcome; tooth extracted; winning of suit; success in sewing; relief from scruples; 198 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. undesirable marriage prevented; relief from water; success in picnic; board obtained; and protected from lightning. There is published in Lackawanna, New York, a Roman Catholic quarterly magazine called “The Annals.” It is the organ of the “Association of Our Blessed Lady of Victory” and little medals are sold which the faithful believe possess mar- velous power when used in connection with then- petitions. This magazine is largely devoted to reports of favors that are supposed to have been granted through the intercession of “Our Blessed Lady of Victory.” From these we take the fol- lowing extracts, which appear in the January issue of 1915: “During the late flood which caused so much damage near here (Lacour, La.) my mother placed a medal at the water’s edge and we prayed that the water might not go beyond it and our prayers were heard.” “A dear friend of mine became very ill with throat trouble. In spite of the doctor’s skill her throat and tongue continued to swell until we feared she would strangle. I put “Our Lady of Victory” medal on her about noon and at three o’clock I returned and found the swelling had gone down and she had slept for the first time in many days. That night the abscess broke and she soon recovered.” In the October issue of this same journal we find the following: “ ‘Our Lady of Victory’ has done much for us. Through her aid we have won our law-suit and my brother carried her medal with him when in search of employment and was very successful.” “I thank ‘Our Blessed Lady of Victory’ for the favor granted us during October Novena, and I am sending $5.00, the amount I promised should my friend obtain work.” “Twice during our absence our home has been entered and robbed. This summer before we went away I placed a medal of the Blessed Vir- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 199 gin on the inside of the main door. Something unknown prompted me to do this. A feeling of security held me, and I told my husband not to take out burglary insurance and to trust our dear Mother. Again they came. The wood around the lock was torn to atoms and the iron work bent, but the door never opened. * * * Praise to Sacred Heart and the Blessed Virgin.” We have been accustomed to smile at the faith of the ignorant old-time colored man and woman who carried with them charms given by Voodoo doctors or other members of their race who were supposed to possess supernatural gifts and pow- ers. Their faith was broad, comprehensive, and we almost said sublime. It was the charm alone, they confidently believed, that preserved them from evil and brought them the poor little com- forts that came into their pinched and narrow lives, but we did not imagine that a great Church in the full light of the Twentieth Century civil- ization, would encourage belief in the magic of charms, medals or badges to prevent rivers from rising, to save persons from prison, cure mules, save cows, and prosper the incubator industry; yet these are the things that prominent Roman Catholic magazines, in the year 1915 in our Re- public, are publishing as facts and sending broad- cast through the mails in the interest of the Roman Church. GENERAL INFORMATION OF INTEREST TO PATRIOTS. BLACK POPE: A term frequently applied to the head of the Jesuit Society. CARDINAL: “A dignitary of the Roman Church and counsellor of the Pope.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Ill, p. 333.) CELIBACY : The unmarried state, or the state where, as in the Roman Catholic Church, a priest is not permitted to marry. “Celibacy of the 200 THE PATRIOT'S MANUAL. clergy,” says the Catholic Encyclopedia, “is the renunciation of marriage, implicitly or explicitly made for the more perfect observance of chas- tity.” Celibacy for the priesthood, and especially for the higher Church officials, was advocated by many of the early Church writers and practiced by many before it became a law of the Church, but in 1075 Gregory VII interdicted married priests from saying mass. “Finally,” observes the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. Ill, p. 486), “in 1123 at the first Lateran Council an enactment was passed (and confirmed more explicitly in the second Lateran Council (Can. VII), which, while not in itself very plainly worded, was held to pronounce the marriages contracted by sub-dea- cons or ecclesiastics of any of the higher orders to be invalid. * * * This may be said to mark the victory of the cause of celibacy; henceforth, all conjugal relations on the part of the clergy in sacred orders were reduced in the eyes of the canon law to mere concubinage.” Terrible exposures have been made by author- itative painstaking historical writers, like Dr. H. C. Lea, of the excesses of the celibate clergy, as shown by history, which it has been impossible for Catholic authorities to disprove or satisfac- torily explain away. COLLEGE OF CARDINALS: Also called Sa- cred College. “Cardinals are a corporation, a college, after the manner of the Cathedral Chap- ters. As a legal corporation the cardinals have their own revenues. The Dean, or head of the College of Cardinals, is the Bishop of Ostia.” (See Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Ill, pp. 339 and 340.) CURIA, Roman: “Strictly speaking, the en- semble of departments or ministries which as- sist” the Pope in the government of the Roman Catholic Church. “These are the Roman Con- gregations, the tribunals and the offices of the Curia.” (See Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 147.) THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 201 ENCYCLICAL: “In modern times usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs,” and which “In their superscription are explicitly addressed to patriarchs, primates, arch- bishops and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See. * * * En- cyclicals are generally concerned with matters which affect the welfare of the Church at large. They condemn the prevalent forms of error, point out dangers which threaten the faith or morals.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 413.) EX CATHEDRA: “(L., from the chair.) By virtue of or in exercise of one’s office; with au- thority.” (Webster.) HERESY: In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church heresy is the failure to accept the entire teachings of the Church. The Catholic Ency- clopedia in its paper on heresy says: “The sub- ject matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith that is the sum total of truths revealed in Scriptures and Tradition, as proposed to our belief by the Church. The be- liever accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own ap- proval.” The Encyclopedia also points out that heresy differs from, apostasy. “The apostate abandons wholly the faith of Christ; the heretic always retains faith in Christ.” (See Vol. V, d. 256.) HIERARCHY: “A body of officials disposed organically in ranks and orders, each subordinate to the one above it; a body of ecclesiastical rulers.” (Webster.) HOLY SEE: The Papal Court or seat of au- thority of the Pope who is the Bishop of Rome. A see, in the ecclesiastical sense, is the seat of authority of a bishop; literally speaking, the throne of a bishop. 202 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. PAPACY : “The Roman Catholic Supreme Government; the office and dignity of the Pope of Rome; the popes collectively; the succession of popes.” (Webster.) PAPAL STATES: A former dominion in Italy directly subject to the Holy See, over which the Pope exercised temporal power. It included Romagno, the Marches, Umbria, and the present Province of Rome. The subjects of the Pope became very restless under the administration of papal authority and gladly assisted the liber- ators in their effort to free the Italian peninsula of the despotisms that had long discouraged and crushed the aspirations of the people. The tem- poral power of the Pope over the Papal States was entirely destroyed in 1870. PETERSPENCE: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, this is an annual tribute (orig- inally a penny from each householder holding land of a certain value) paid to the exchequer of the Holy See by the Catholics of the world. ROMAN CONGREGATIONS: The great de- partments “Organized by the Holy See” to assist in the transaction of those affairs which canon- ical discipline and the individual interests of the faithful bring to Rome. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 136.) They are thirteen in number, as follows: (1) Congregation of the Holy Office — the Roman Inquisition, formerly called the Holy Roman Universal Inquisition. (2) Congregation of the Consistory. (3) Congregation of the Sacraments. (4) Congregation of the Council. (5) Congregation of the Religious. (6) Congregation of Propaganda. (7) Congregation of the Index. (8) Congregation of Rites. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 203 (9) Congregation of Ceremonies. (10) Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesi- astical Affairs. (11) Congregation of Studies. (12) Congregation of Loreto. (13) Congregation of the Fabric of St. Peters. The Cardinal’s Oath. All cardinals are compelled to take an oath on entering their duties, or becoming “Princes of the Church.” On December 1, 1911, “The Daily Telegram” of London, England, published the following translation of the oath which the car- dinals are compelled to take. This oath was accepted as genuine by Monsignor Canon Moyes, in a letter published in the Roman Catholic journal, the “Tablet,” of London, December 16, 1911: “I, of the Holy Roman Church, cardinal of , promise and swear, from this hour forward, as long as I shall live, to be faithful and obedient to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, and our Most Holy Lord Pius X, and his canonically elected successor; “To give no counsel, nor to concur in anything, nor aid in any way, against the pontifical maj- esty or person; “Never to disclose affairs entrusted to me by them personally, by their nuncios, or by letters,, willingly or knowingly, to their detriment or dis- honor; “To be ever ready to aid them to retain, defend and recover their rights against all, to fight with all zeal, and all my forces, for their honor and dignity; “To direct and defend honorably and kindly legates and nuncios of the apostolic see in all places under my jurisdiction, to provide for their safe journey, and treat them hon®rably going. 204 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. during their stay, and during their return, and to resist, even to the shedding of blood, whosoever would attempt anything against them; “To try in every way to assert, uphold, pre- serve, increase and promote the rights, even tem- poral, especially those of the civil principality, the liberty, the honor, privileges and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and the aforesaid successors; “When it shall come to my knowledge that some machination, prejudicial to those rights, which I cannot prevent, is taking place, imme- diately to make it known to the Pope, his suc- cessor, or to some one qualified to convey the knowledge to them; “To observe and fulfill, and see that others ob- serve and fulfill, the regulations, the decrees and the ordinances, the dispensations and .preserva- tion of provisions and apostolic mandates, the constitutions of Pope Sixtus V, of happy mem- ory, concerning visits ‘Ad limina Apostolorum’ at the prescribed times, according to the tenor of said constitution; “To combat with every effort heretics, schis- matics, and those rebelling against our lord the Pope and his successors; “When summoned for any reason whatsoever by the Holy Father or his successor, to come to them, or when detained by a just cause to send one to present my excuses, and to show them due reverence and obedience; “Never to sell or to give away, mortgage, or alienate without consent of the Roman Pontiff, even though the consent of said chapters or con- vents or churches or monasteries or their bene- fices be had, the possessions belonging to the ‘ mensa of the Church, monasteries, or other benefices committed to me; “Likewise to observe inviolably the constitution of the Supreme Pontiff Pius X, which begins Vacante Sede Apostolica, given at Rome the THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 205 twenty-fifth day of December, in the year 1904, concerning the vacancy of the Holy See and the election of the Roman Pontiff; and to lend no help or countenance to any intervention of the civil power in the election of the Pope; likewise, “To observe minutely each and all of the decrees, especially those which have emanated from the sacred congregation of the ceremonies, or those to come from it, relative to the sublime dignity of the cardinalate, nor do anything which would be repugnant to the honor and dignity of it, and to pay the rights of the cardinaPs ring conceded by Gregory XV to the Sancta Congrega- tio de Propoganda Fide. “So help me God and these holy gospels.” Father Jeremiah J. Crowley, after reproducing the above in his work on “Romanism; A Menace to the Nation,” observes: “Many of the same obligations are imposed in the oath administered to archbishops and bishops, including that part referring to action against heretics and schismatics (Protestants). “It is simply impossible for a cardinal, or any member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, to be a loyal son of the Church and at the same time a loyal citizen of the United States, or of any other country.” The American or Know-Nothing Party. The American Party, organized in 1853, often called the Know-Nothing Party, was a secret or oath-bound organization, as much so as is the Knights of Columbus of our day, and its mem- bers were as frankly opposed to Roman Catholic- ism as are the Knights of Columbus aggressively interested in advancing politico-ecclesiastical Romanism. The organization grew rapidly in power and in 1855 carried nine states. The mighty slavery struggle, however, soon over-shadowed all else. 206 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Then came the Civil War and religio-political questions were for many years obscured. The American Protective Association. This organization was formed in 1893-4 for the preservation of constitutional liberty and maintaining the government of the United States in its integrity. The promoters beheld with grave fear the intolerant, persistent, and aggres- sive work of the Roman Catholic Church to under- mine the free school system and divert public funds for sectarian purposes. They held that no man’s religion should be attacked so long as he did not attempt to make his religion an element of political power, but that ail religio-political organizations were enemies of civil and religious liberty. The organization served to awaken tens of thou- sands of American citizens to a realization^pf the menace of Rome's attack on our free school sys- tem and its persistent effort to gain undue recog- nition for the Catholic Church in political affairs. The organization was usually called by its initials A. P. A. THE POPES VERSUS THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS. No one can read the ingenious casuistry of the religio-political clericals and Knights of Columbus of today, any more than he can peruse the amaz- ing mental gymnastics of the Jesuits and such Roman Catholic masters of theological doctrine as St. Alphonsus Liguori, without being forcibly re- minded of the vivid exposure of the double doc- trine of the Church of Rome as given by the Baroness von Zedtwitz.* *“The Double Doctrine of the Church of Rome.” New York, Fleming- H. Revell Company. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 207 The Knights of Columbus at the thirty-second session of the Supreme Council, held in Seattle, Washington, August 3-5, 1915, undertook, through the Committee on Religious Prejudice, to allay the fears of patriotic Americans, aroused over the organized activity of the religio-political Catholic element in this country. It was held that the prejudice against Roman Catholics was due large- ly to an erroneous belief, namely, “that we owe such allegiance to the Pope as is incompatible with proper allegiance to our country.” The report attempts to meet the situation by the following declaration: “We should lose no proper occasion to declare the position of Catholics and the teachings of the Church on this matter; namely, that while Catho- lics acknowledge the Pope to be supreme in spir- itual matters, they do not hold that he has au- thority in civil matters. If any spiritual authority were to direct us to do any act contrary to the rights of free citizens or the welfare of society, we would be bound to disobey.” Before setting over against this utterance the authoritative statements or teachings of the Catholic Church, as given in the encyclicals of recent Popes, let it be noted that the Roman Catholic recognizes the Pope and the Church Coun- cils as the highest, and, indeed, the only infallible authority in matters of faith and of conduct. Pius IX on the Position of the Church. Pope Pius IX took occasion to declare the posi- tion of Catholics and the teachings of the Church in official utterances and in no uncertain language. Thus, in the famous Syllabus published in 1864, in which he enumerates eighty propositions that the head of the Church held to be “principal er- rors of our time,” the Pope condemned as an error or false teaching (Error 24) the claim that the Church has not the power to use force, or that she has no temporal power, direct or indirect.* See citations from Syllabus of Pius IX, Part II. 20S THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Again (55), the Pope denounces as an error or false teaching* the claim that the Church ought to be separated from the State or the State from the Church. In error 57 the Pope definitely condemns as false the claim that civil laws “may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical author- ity.” In error 77 we find the Pope condemning as false teaching the claim that “it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” He denounces (78) the claim that in some Catholic countries persons coming to reside there- in shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. And (80) the Pope condemns as false the proposition that the head of the Church should reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization. These propositions, which are elsewhere quoted verbatim , are tantamount to declarations: (1) Of the right of the Church to use force and exercise temporal power. (2) That there should be union of Church and State. (3) That ecclesiastical authority should and ought to be exercised in civil laws as well as in things philosophical and moral. (4) That the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship, and that in some Catholic countries, persons coming to reside there- in should not be permitted to enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. (5) That the Church, or the head of the Church, should not reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civili- zation. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 209 These things are not the irresponsible declara- tions of a religio-political body having no official authority in the Church to define Catholic teach- ings, but are the solemn utterances from, ency- clicals delivered by the Supreme Pontiff under the full blaze of nineteenth century liberalism, as hav- ing binding force, being the true teachings of the Church. But Pius IX is not the only head of the Church who is in direct opposition to the statement and implications as to the teachings of the Church and the obligations of loyal Catholics put forward by the Knights of Columbus for Protestant consump- tion. Pape Leo XIII on the Teachings of the Church. If the Knights of Columbus are correct in their stand, Pope Leo XIII, who, according to the Vati- can Council (1870), when he speaks ex cathedra is infallible and his utterances irreformable, must be in the deep darkness of error, as will be seen from these typical utterances taken from his Encyclical Letters:* “It is his [the Pope’s] charge not only to rule the Church but generally so to regulate the actions of Christian citizens that they may be in apt conformity to their hope of gaining eternal salva- tion.” “To exclude the Church * * * from the power of making laws * * * is a grave and fatal error.” “Where the church does not forbid taking part in public affairs, it is fit and proper to give sup- port to men of acknowledged worth, and who pledge themselves to deserve well in the Catholic cause.” For amplified statement of Rome’s authoritative po- sition on the obligations of the Catholic voter and the State, on freedom of thought and press, on Church and State, and kindred subjects, see Part II of this Manual. 210 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. “It would be very erroneous to draw the con- clusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for state and church to be, as in America, dis- severed and divorced. * * * She (the church) would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of public authority.” These positive declarations from the encycli- cals of Leo XIII, given in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, after the Church had authoritatively declared the. ex cathedra utter- ances of her Popes to be irreformable, are of course binding on every loyal Roman Catholic. According to these positive declarations, it is the Pope’s charge to regulate the actions of Christian citizens. The Church should not be excluded from making laws. It is the function of the Pope, or the Church, to control the voter, even to taking from him his right to vote. It is the function of the Pope, or the Church, to direct the voters as to how they shall vote. And finally, the liberty of religion in America is not the desirable type in the eyes of the Pope, who holds that the Church should enjoy the patronage of public authority. This is a complete refutation of the important claims of the Knights of Columbus as to the political obligations of the loyal Catholic voter. Pius X Cited.* The official utterances of Pius X are often even more reactionary than those of his two illustrious predecessors. This is notably the case in the encyclical. “Notre charge apostolique,” re- pressing the Catholic society, le Sillon, in which the Holy Father maintains that there can be no For full presentation of the position of Pius X see • Part II of this Manual. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 211 worthy civilization not wholly controlled by the Church; also in such utterances as those in which he vehemently protested against the Spanish law that permitted dissenters to post their services and to exhibit the customary signs which would indicate houses of worship. Leaving for a moment the authoritative and binding declarations of the Church’s teachings as they relate to the Catholic voter and to the atti- tude of the Church toward the State, and coming down to our own country, we have a concrete example of Rome’s position, only second to Church Council and Pope in authoritative value. In a letter written by the Apostolic Delegate, Arch- bishop Bonzano, on June 10, 1912, to Thomas Carey of Palestine, Texas, replying to the query: “Must I as a Catholic surrender my political free- dom to the Church? * * * By this I mean the right to vote for the Democratic, Socialist, or Republican party when and where I please?”—the Papal Delegate said: “You should submit to the decisions of the Church, even at the cost of sacrificing political principles.” How bald the casuistry and meaningless the phrases of the clericals or religio-political Catho- lics, in the light of these binding official utter- ances of the Church. Moreover, the simple fact that the politico- ecclesiastical Roman organizations and individuals are warring against freedom of press, are favor- ing public appropriations for sectarian institu- tions, are opposing our popular secular schools, and are thus in direct opposition to the three great principles and facts that are distinguishing glories of this Republic, all of which the Pope of Rome condemns, is in itself a complete refutation of the claim that the political Romanist does not take his civil or governmental theories from the Pope of Rome. 212 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS. Knights of Columbus, founded in New Haven, Connecticut, February 2, 1882, and incorporated under the laws of Connecticut, March 29, 1882. The incorporators were Rev. M. J. McGivney, Rev. P. P. Lawlor, James T. Mullen, Cornelius T. Driscoll, Dr. M. C. O’Connor, Daniel Colwell, William M. Geary, John T. Kerrigan, Bartholo- mew Healy, and Michael Curran. The purpose of the organization, as stated by its friends, is to establish practical Catholicity among its members, and to promote Catholic education and charity. On April 15, 1885, the first council was estab- lished outside the parent State of Connecticut. In 1886 the Supreme Committee resolved itself into a Board of Government, composed of the Board of Directors and the Grand Knight and Past Grand Knight of each subordinate council of the society. Members are divided into two classes—insur- ance and associate. On March 1, 1910, there were 74,909 insurance members and 160,708 associate members. According to the “World Almanac and Encyclo- pedia” for 1915, the membership at the time of the compilation of the almanac was 827,750. The Supreme Knight at that time was James A. Flaherty of New Haven, Connecticut; Supreme Secretary, M. J. McGivney, of New Haven; Su- preme Treasurer, D. J. Callahan, of Washington, D. C, The erection of the memorial to Christopher Columbus, in the city of Washington, by the United States Government, is due in a measure to the work of the Knights of Columbus. Columbus Day was instituted largely through the efforts of the Knights, who are now striving to make it a national holiday. It is already a holiday in fifteen States of the Union, namely, California, Colorado, THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 21a Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massa- chusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jer- sey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC SOCIETIES. “The American Federation of Catholic Societies- is an organization of the Catholic laity, parishes and societies, under the guidance of the hierar- chy, to protect and advance their religious, civil and social interests.” Among the principal objects of the Federation are the promotion of Catholic education, -combat- ting opposition to Catholic theories, and the in- fusion of Catholic principles into public and social life. “The first organization to inaugurate the move- ment for a concerted action of the societies of Catholic laymen was the Knights of St. John. At their annual meeting held in Cleveland in 1899 they resolved to unite the efforts of their local commanderies. In 1900, *at Philadelphia, they dis- cussed the question of a federation of all Catho- lic societies. As a result, a convention was held on December 10, 1901, in Cincinnati, under the presidency of Mr. H. J. Fries. Two hundred and fifty delegates were present, under the guidance of Bishop McFaul of Trenton. Bishop Mesmer, of Green Bay, (now Archbishop of Milwaukee) was also a master spirit in the organization, as- sisted by Archbishop Elder of Cincinnati, Bishop Horstmann of Cleveland, and Bishop Maes of Covington. A charter bond was framed and the Federation formally established, with Mr. T. B. Minahan as its first president. Since then annual convocations have been held.” The Federation has been approved by Leo XIII and Pius X, and by practically all the hierarchy in the United States. It is becoming a great political engine for the advancement of the Roman 214 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Catholic theory of government in this Republic. It boasts of its influence in the settlement of the Philippine Friar question and the securing of the celebration of mass in the navy yards, prisons and reform schools. But a perusal of the reports of the secretary as given from year to year shows that it is unceasingly active in its effort to in- fluence the press and State and national govern- ments, in the general Catholic effort to prevent free and unfettered discussion of Catholicism and various issues which the Church does not wish the American people to consider from an all-around viewpoint. HOW THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY IS REPRESENTED IN THE UNITED STATES. 14 Archdeacons. 86 Dioceses. 1 Vicarist Apostolic. 1 Praefecture Apostolic. 1 Apostolic Delegate, in Washington, D. C. 2 Arch Abbeys. 16 Abbeys. 58 Subordinate religious societies, with their general residing in Rome. 14 Archbishops, three of them Cardinals. 102 Bishops. 14,008 Secular Priests. 4,986 Regular Priests (belonging to Com- munities and religious societies). 9,883 Churches, with resident Priests. 5,078 Missions with Churches—totaling 14,961. 85 Seminaries. 6,770 Students. 229 Colleges for boys. 680 Academies for girls. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 215 5,488 Parishes with schools. 1,456,206 Children attending, including academies. 284 Orphan Asylums. 45,742 Orphans. 115 Homes for aged. According to Catholic estimates, the total Catholic population is 16,809,310. This estimate, however, as Dr. Carroll points out, includes the children who have not yet been confirmed, and in this respect differs from the data for Protestant churches. The figures from many districts are also merely estimates and are therefore of little value for the student desiring accurate statistics. They are probably greatly in excess of the real Catholic population, as the special aim of Rome has been, during recent years, to impress politi- cians with the size of her population, not only because of influencing nominations, but also in justification for the abnormally large number of Catholic appointments in cities, in postal and other departments of government. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS. The Roman Catholic press at the present time in the United States and its insular possessions is represented by two dailies, eighty-nine week- lies, three bi-weeklies, thirty-two monthlies, three bi-monthlies, and three quarterlies, making in all one hundred and thirty-two regular publications. HOUSES OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND JUVENILE DELINQUENTS. In many American cities during recent years, or since the Catholics have become a dominant power in consequence of their political organiza- tion, a pernicious innovation has been tolerated 216 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. in the sentencing of juvenile offenders to the so-called Houses of the Good Shepherd, or Good Shepherd convents, where they are subject to arbitrary treatment, without such rigid State responsibility or supervision as should mark all institutions where moral delinquents are placed by the State. During the last few years facts have from time to time come to light sufficient to show the evil of permitting these sectarian religious insti- tutions to do the work that the State alone should be entrusted with. One illuminating fact which, because of its sensational news value, was permitted to see the light of day in the columns of a great daily, appeared in the Cincinnati “Inquirer” of July 9, 1912. It described the escape of three girls, at the risk of their lives, from the convent of the Good Shepherd at Carthage. The girls told piti- ful stories. In its report of the escape and cap- ture, the “Inquirer” said: “The girls each told remarkable tales of alleged cruel treatment and beatings they claimed that they were subjected to at the convent, and de- clared that it was because of this and the hard work they were compelled to do that they risked their lives in order to escape. * * * The Flagg girl declared that the commitment was but for one year and that she was entitled to discharge eight months ago.” In Pittsburg, as in various other cities, politico- ecclesiastical Romanism has succeeded in having many girls charged with moral delinquency con- veyed to the House of the Good Shepherd. In 1913 an aldermanic investigation of this Cath- olic prison v/as made, after it was found that the authorities had given upwards of $4,600 to the home for the maintenance of the girls and women who had been committed by police magistrates of that city. The investigation brought out some startling facts. The committee that investigated this Good Shepherd home sought to find out if THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 217 this institution, which was receiving seventeen thousand dollars a year from the State, was, as claimed and as the State law provides, conducted as a non-sectarian institution and if it was re- formative in character. The following are some of the questions asked the Mother Superior and her answers: Q. Are girls allowed to speak at meals? A. No. Q. For what offenses is the dungeon .used? A. For serious offenses, such as swearing and using immoral language. Q. For what offenses is corporal punishment used? A. For serious offenses. Q. For what offenses must girls eat off of the floor? A. For using bad language at the table. Q. What is done with girls who try to escape ? A. We cut their hair off. Q. If a girl has no friends and wishes to leave the convent, is she prevented? A. Well, she is allowed to write a letter once a month. The letters are read before being sent out. Q. Must Protestant and Jewish girls attend Catholic services, keep fast days, etc., and take part in sectarian observances? A. They must all go to services. (It was later learned that the girls arise at 5:30 every morning and all go to mass.) Q. Are ministers permitted to interview Prot- estant girls except in the presence of attendants of the institution? A. No. Q. Are parents allowed to see the girls ex- cept under supervision of an attendant and ex- cept through a grating? 218 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. A. They are allowed to see the girls only through a grating and only in the presence of an attendant. The laws which are supposed to grant protec- tion from abuse are lax in provisions, and it has been shown that on occasions they are lax in execution. Under present conditions, owing to this innovation, it is possible for children to be made slaves in laundries operated by the insti- tution, or in other employments for the enrich- ment of the religious bodies. Another evil aspect of this attempt to make use of Good Shepherd quasi-public institutions, by which Catholic officials may supply laundry help and in other ways aid in enriching the Cath- olic organizations, was brought out in the con- viction of Policeman L. H. Bartlett, in the city of Pittsburgh, in the summer of 1913, for illegal action in connection with the arrest and commit- ment of Marie Bertha Pumphrey. The police officer was fined five hundred dollars for false arrest and imprisonment. The girl had com- mitted no crime whatsoever. These are typical examples of evils that have come to the surface in spite of the nation-wide effort of Catholics to prevent all such scandals from reaching the public ear. Numbers of other instances might be cited, all of which cry in trumpet-tone for the abolition of this evil inno- vation, this turning over of moral delinquents to irresponsible sectarian institutions or institu- tions not wholly owned and conducted by the State. It is extremely important that in every State proper legislative measures should be vigorously pushed to render further abuses of this nature impossible. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 219 INSPECTION OF CONVENTS. The movement to have proper legislation for the official inspection of convents is growing in popular favor, as a result of the pitiful tales of wrongs, abuses and outrages that have been given to the public in recent years by escaped nuns and those who have left Catholic institutions before becoming so immured that escape was well-nigh impossible. Friends of this proposed legislation, while not wishing to resort to any drastic laws, such as Catholic Mexico felt it necessary to pass, hold that there is no method by which the abuses com- plained of in special cases can be thoroughly in- vestigated, and with the press muzzled as it is, proper publicity cannot at present be obtained. They point out the fact that there are vast num- bers of girls and women, many of whom probably enter the convents when under stress of some great sorrow or when otherwise in a highly hys- terical or emotional condition. They in many cases may have become the victims of the undue influence of priests or over-solicitous parents, or even of designing pretended friends, and may now be living lives of torture because denied the free- dom and pleasures of a normal life. Surely, when any of these inmates have been clearly the victims of undue influence in times of stress or periods of weakness, they should not forever be immured in the prison-like convents, if they desire the free- dom of the outer world. But quite aside from such considerations, if a tithe of what has been said and is being said about the abuses and evil conditions, by those who have escaped from the convents, is true, it is clearly the duty of the State to inspect them. On the other hand, if these tales are false, as the Church avers, the Church should have the benefit of impartial investigation to disprove the awful stories that are now being believed, and which will continue to be believed by millions of our people so long as Catholics seek to prevent 220 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. publicity being given to stories of those who come from the institutions, and so long as they are terror-stricken at even the suggestion of im- partial investigation by prominent citizens of un- impeachable character. All that is demanded is the establishment of conditions that will discourage and render impos- sible such wrongs, abuses and outrages as are charged as taking place within certain convent walls. Inspection Bill Passed in Arkansas Legislature. Bills for the inspection of convents have been introduced in the legislatures of several states. The first legislature to pass such a measure was that of Arkansas which enacted by a vote of two to one in the House and twenty-two to eight in the Senate the following bill at the 1915 session of legislature : An act to provide for the inspection of all public or private hospitals, reformatory homes, deten- tion homes, convents, asylums, sectarian semi- naries, schools or institutions, by the sheriff of the county in which said institutions are situ- ated, or by the Grand Jury thereof or by any person or persons appointed by the Circuit Judge of the district in which said institutions are located, upon a petition signed by twenty citizens of said county or district or by the volition of said judge. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas : Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arkansas : Section 1. That every private or public hospi- tal, reformatory home, detention home, convent, i Arkansas Inspection Bill. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 221 asylum, sectarian seminary, school or institution, shall be open at all times to the inspection of the sheriff of the county in which said institutions are situated, or to the Grand Jury thereof, or to the inspection of any person, or persons duly ap- pointed by the Circuit Judge of the district in which said institutions are located, upon a peti- tion being presented to him requesting the same, signed by twenty citizens of said county or dis- trict, or by the volition of said judge. Section 2. It shall be the duty of each and any sheriff of his county, or the Grand Jury thereof, or any person, or persons who may be appointed by the Circuit Judge of the District in which said institutions are situated, to visit un- announced, every public or private house of de- tention, convent, asylum, sectarian seminary, school or institution, and he shall interrogate each inmate out of the hearing of any official or serva- tors of said institutions separately, to ascertain whether or not the inmates of said institution or institutions, are, in fact, the subjects of voluntary confinement. It being the purpose of this law to afford every person within the confines of said institu- tion, the fullest opportunity to divulge the truth as to their detention therein, without being de- terred by the force of such punishment within the institution as they might draw upon them- selves if their disclosures were committed to the person or persons who are responsible for their confinement, or who shall have authority over them in said institution. Section 3. It shall be the duty of the sheriff of the county, or any person, or persons ap- pointed by the Circuit Judge of the district in which said institution is situated, to file before the clerk of said county, or district, a full and complete report of the results of such inspection of the above institutions, not later than ten days before the meeting of the Circuit Court of such county, for the inspection of the Grand Jury thereof. 222 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Section 4. Any sheriff, or person, or persons appointed by said Circuit Judge who shall fail, or refuse to carry out the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars for the first of- fense, and three hundred dollars for any addi- tional offense. Section 5. Any officer, agent, employee, or other person or persons refusing to permit, or interfering in any manner with, the inspection of any such private or public hospital, reforma- tory home, house of detention, convent, asylum, sectarian seminary, school or institution, by the sheriff, or the Grand Jury thereof, or any per- son or persons duly appointed or authorized by the Circuit Judge in accordance with the terms of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be pun- ished by a fine of not less than three hundred dollars and six months imprisonment for the first offense, and for each additional offense, not less than five hundred dollars fine, and imprisonment not less than one year. Section 6. Any person, or persons who may be appointed by the Circuit Judge as herein pro- vided in Section 2 of this Act, shall each receive for their services the sum of $2.00 per day while actually engaged, and the sheriff of said county shall receive mileage as is now provided for by law, in going to and returning from said institu- tions, and the sum of one dollar for each report made to the Court. Section 7. That this law being necessary for the immediate preservation of peace, health and safety, shall be in force and effect from and after its passage, and all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 223 PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES AND ORGANIZA- TIONS. The war being aggressively waged by Roman Catholics to substitute the Papal for the democrat- ic theory of government in our Republic; the rise and rapid growth of the powerful secret Roman Catholic society known as the Knights of Colum- bus; the organization, under the guidance of prominent bishops, of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, and its pernicious activity in government and in seeking to influence or dominate the press; together with the general spirit of intolerance of all criticism and hostility to intellectual hospitality that has marked the campaign to make America “dominantly Catho- lic, has served to arouse in recent years a large and ever growing number of the more thoughtful and broad visioned of our people to the impor- tance of concerted action for the maintenance of the integrity of free institutions. These citizens, as lovers of the democracy of Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Lincoln, and as students of history, recognize the peril in the present attack of Roman Catholics on our free press and free schools, and they have during the past few years been rapidly organizing in societies and open bodies, all pledged to the maintenance of freedom in religion, freedom of speech, press and assembly, divorce of Church and State, and the protection of our public school system. Some of these organizations are so secret that only the members know their names; some go by initials and are quietly working for the main- tenance and integrity of the Republic of the fathers and for the prevention of the State be- coming either the patron of, or identified with, any sect, faith or church. Among the better known and more powerful of these secret societies of which we are writing are the Guardians of Liberty, the Junior Order of American Mechanics and the Knights of Luther. 224 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The American Federation of Patriotic Societies is an important organization for promoting closer action between the various societies and patriotic workers. The most important of the open organ- izations pledged to uphold the American prin- ciples is the American Minute Men, whose head- quarters are in Boston. Guardians of Liberty. One of the chief of these secret organizations is the Guardians of Liberty. This society was founded at Washington, D. C., June 9, 1911, and is at present headed by such men as Lieutenant- General Nelson A. Miles, Rear-Admiral G. W. Baird, Charles R. Young, William Schoenfield, and Sigmund Stern. Correspondence should be addressed to headquarters, Masonic Temple, 50 West 24th St., New York City. The following is the platform and declaration of principles of the Guardians of Liberty: “We, members of the order of the Guardians of Liberty, impelled by the conviction that the greatest treasure possessed by the citizens of these United States is that of civil and religious liberty, and with an earnest intent to encourage and pro- mote a deeper, stronger and more active loyalty to the fundamental ideas of the founders of this Republic, do make the following Declaration of Principles: First. We unite as a non-sectarian, non-parti- san moral force to promote and extend benevo- lence among our members and to promote and foster a pure spirit of patriotism and a sacred re- gard for the welfare of our country. It is our belief that every citizen should hold sacred his civil duties and responsibilities; and it is our desire that every office of the nation, state and municipality shall be held by men of ability, in- tegrity and true patriotism. We hold that no THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 225 citizen is a true patriot who owns allegiance to any power which claims temporal superiority over his obligations to the principles of the United States. Second. As the fathers established, so are we resolved to secure and maintain the complete sep- aration of Church and State. Third. We deny the right of any political or ecclesiastical organization to manipulate or con- trol the sovereign citizenship of our people or to dispose of their civil rights and privileges for political office or power, and we are determined that every citizen shall exercise these rights and privileges unmolested, answerable only to his conscience and to his God. Fourth. We unite to protect and preserve the free institutions of our country, especially our public educational system, against any foreign or menacing influence and v/e particularly protest against the diversion of any public funds or lands to any religious purpose whatever.” At a public hearing before the Congressional Committee which in 1915 considered the Fitz- gerald and Gallivan bills, an officer of the Guardians of Liberty stated that the membership of this organization at that time was almost one million. The Knights of Luther. The Knights of Luther is a secret, patriotic, fraternal organization which was created and in- corporated at Des Moines, Iowa, on February 7, 1913. It was brought into existence by seven of Iowa’s leading citizens, whose character and repu- tation will bear the closest scrutiny; men of large business experience and thorough knowledge of the various subjects with which the organization deals. This great order consists of the “Knights of Luther” and the “Ladies of Luther,” and thus be- comes a twin organization, each having complete control of its own affairs. 226 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. The foundation of the Order is based upon 'the following governmental principles: Free public schools, free speech, free press, separation of Church and State, and freedom of worship ac- cording to dictates of conscience. Thus, the or- ganization is in perfect harmony with the decla- ration of principles of the United States govern- ment, being identical. It will strenuously, persistently and continuous- ly fight any man or set of men, or any organiza- tion, or any church which opposes the things enumerated above, in part or in whole. Address F. M. Shippey, General Superintendent of Organizers, 405 Youngerman Building, Des Moines, Iowa. The Junior Order of American Mechanics. This is one of the oldest and most powerful secret patriotic orders in America. It has ac- complished a great work, especially in certain Eastern and Southern states, in keeping alive the* old-time enthusiasm for fundamental democracy, and in arousing the people to a realization of the dangers to our free institutions from the war being waged by politico-ecclesiastical Romanism against our free schools, free press and other bulwarks of democracy. Address headquarters Junior Order of Ameri- can Mechanics, Philadelphia, Pa. American Federatien of Patriotic Societies. The American Federation of Patriotic Societies sprung into existence in 1913, and is at present headed by D. J. Reynolds, Otis L. Spurgeon, and C. W. Bibb. The society is intended to be a clearing house for all the patriotic organizations. Its promoters hold that if the great patriotic movement is to be effective or succeed, it must be through harmonious and concerted action; that organization promoting autocracy and anti- democratic theories can only be checkmated by THE PATRIOT'S MANUAL. 227 organization for democracy, liberty and human uplift. The Federation stands squarely upon the principles enunciated by the Declaration of Inde- pendence and the Constitution of the United States, and opposes all individuals or organiza- tions that seek to undermine and overthrow the basic principles of our free democracy. Address the National Secretary, 424 Plymouth Bldg., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The American Minute Men. This is an organization with the definite pur- pose of preventing the appropriation of public money for sectarian schools or other sectarian institutions. It seeks to promote a movement to amend the national and state constitutions in such a way as to forever prevent such appropriations. It is an open organization. There are no dues, it being supported by voluntary contributions. Address American Minute Men, P. 0. 2699, Boston, Mass. THE FREE PRESS DEFENSE LEAGUE. This organization grew out of the need that exists in America for some strong central body that will get out in the open and resist the en- croachments of the enemies of this Republic who are striving to control and destroy our free in- stitutions. A liberal charter has been granted by the state of Kansas, which provides as follows: 1. To enroll in its membership all patriotic men and women in the United States of America. 2. To provide for the maintenance of the or- ganization by subscriptions, contributions, be- quests, donations and other lawful means. 3. To carry on an educational campaign, and for that purpose to publish newspapers, maga- zines, books and other printed matter. 2 28 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 4. To provide for patriotic speeches, lectures and sermons, through a system of meetings, lyceums, chautauquas and encampments. 5. To provide for the education in law of patriotic young men and women in each com- munity, for service in behalf of the people of America in their constitutional right of free speech, of free press, of the right of assemblage; also for the protection of the people in their right to have free and universal education. 6. To do and perform such acts and things, not in conflict with the law, as may be necessary to properly carry out the purposes of this organi- zation. 7. This League is organized not for profit, but for service to mankind. It shall be non-sectarian and non-partisan. Its sole object and purpose shall be to increase and promote the liberty, hap- piness and welfare of the people. In order to provide members for a permanent Legal Bureau, the League has made arrange- ments to educate a large number of young men and women in the law. It has provided for a splendid course in law that can be studied at home without any loss of time by the students from their usual avocations. It is organizing the only Patriotic Law Class in the world which provides an opportunity for the man or woman who wishes to prepare for meeting, in a large and successful way, the great issues that are bound to overshadow all other questions in the near future, and upon the out- come of which hang the fate of free institutions or fundamental democracy. The League is an open organization. Corre- spondence solicited. All correspondence should be addressed to headquarters, Ft. Scott, Kansas. The officers are: B. 0. Flower, Boston, Massachusetts, President. Gilbert O. Nations, Farmington, Missouri, First Vice-President. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 229 A. W. Lovejoy, Girard, Kansas, ' Second Vice- President. James G. Sheppard, Fort Scott, Kansas, Third Vice-President and General Counsel. J. I. Sheppard, Fort Scott, Kansas, Secretary- Treasurer. THE MENACE. The history of American journalism abounds in wonder stories and many of them read like tales from the Arabian Nights. The latest, and in many respects the most wonderful of these records of success, is found in the history of the “Menace.” In the little town of Aurora in southern Mis- souri, on the 15th of April, 1911, was published the first issue of a modest appearing little weekly paper. By July of that year it had gained a circulation of 7,145 copies; by the close of 1915 it had a paid circulation of one million and a quarter. It is usually reckoned that a paper is read by five persons. With propaganda journals the number of readers is frequently much greater than this proportion, but counting five to the subscriber, we have over six million thinking Americans reading this journal each week and thus becoming acquainted with the machinations of politico-ecclesiastical Romanism, in its relent- less war against our public schools and against freedom of the press, and its ceaseless efforts to push forward its campaign to make America dominantly Catholic. It is not strange that this paper soon became the “black beast” of the Knights of Columbus and the ever-present terror of the American Fed- eration of Catholic Societies. Politico-ecclesiastical Romanism well knows that it is only by lulling the people to sleep, only by preventing all full and free discussion, that it can substitute the Papal theory of gov- ernment for the free democracy of the fathers; 230 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. therefore, turning on the light and revealing facts that are fatal to the politico-clerical schemes spread dismay in the councils of the enemies of free democracy. The word went forth that the “Menace” must be destroyed and the forces of politico-Romanism were enlisted to compass that destruction. The Postmaster-General was appealed to to suppress it. He refused to violate the Consti- tutional guarantees or usurp powers he did not rightfully possess, even to please political Ro- manism. Then Congress was appealed to to pass legislation abridging the freedom of the press, and the fact that the “Menace” had exposed im- moral acts of representatives of Romanism was made the excuse for legal attempts to destroy it, just as these same enemies of free democracy have sought to destroy Honorable Thomas E. Watson and silence Anna Lowry. All the pow- ers of politico-Romanism have for some time been concentrated against the “Menace,” because Rome knows that with a continuation of such a propaganda as it is carrying forward the cher- ished dream of making America dominantly Cath- olic will remain merely a dream. But what is the secret of the wonderful suc- cess of the “Menace”? Other publications that have quickly obtained phenomenal circulations have, in almost every instance, had behind .them from the start vast capital for advertising and exploitation purposes. But this paper was started practically without capital, started in an obscure part of the land, and yet in less than five years it has a weekly audience of over six million souls. The secret of its success is found in the fol- lowing facts: ( 1 ) The men who founded it and those who have carried forward the work were men of high idealism, possessing that stern austere loyalty to duty that marked the great leaders of the Protestant Reformation and the fathers of mod- em democracy. They have been without excep- tion men of sincerity, earnestness and lofty con- THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 231 yictions, free from all taint of sordid commer- cialism. (2) The “Menace” met the growing demand of hundreds of thousands of high-minded patriots and broad-visioned democrats who saw, in the intolerance and growing spirit of bigotry being manifested by politico-ecclesiastical Romanism, impending destruction of the free schools and other bulwarks of democracy, unless the people could be roused, and those patriots sprang to the front. All along the firing line, from ocean to ocean, they appeared and the “Menace” became the rallying center for those who dared oppose the militant enemies of our free democracy; and this army of patriots have worked for its suc- cess just as its founders have worked for the great Cause. Herein lies the true secret of the success of the “Menace.” The men who founded this journal and those who since have borne the brunt of battle will hold a high place on the honor roll of progress where is inscribed the names of those who have dared to battle against powerful organized reactionary influences in the interest of freedom and progress, of universal education and the higher rights of man. SOME PATRIOTIC PUBLIC SPEAKERS. Below we give a partial list of the most widely known patriotic speakers: Lieutenant-General Nelson A. Miles, Wash- ington, D. C. Rear Admiral G. W. Baird, Washington, D. C. Bishop Wm. Burt, Buffalo, N. Y. Ex-Congressman Charles D. Haines, New York City. Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, Wheaton, 111. Rev. Augustus E. Barnett, Philadelphia, Pa. Rev. Otis L. Spurgeon, Des Moines, Iowa. F. B. Jordon, Minneapolis, Minn. William Lloyd Clark, Milan, 111. 232 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. A. D. Bulman, Detroit, Mich. Ford Hendrickson, Toledo, Ohio. F. F. De Long, Fremont, Ohio. Anna M. Lowry, Richville, Wash. Basil E. Newton, Aurora, Mo. P. A. Seguin and wife, Lake Mills, Wis. Walter Sims, Bay City, Mich. Drs. Joseph and Mary Slatterly, Boston, Mass. C. W. Bibb, Minneapolis, Minn. Helen Jackson, Toledo, Ohio. Billy Parker, Oil City, Pa. J. W. Forest. Albany, New York. L. J. King, Toledo, Ohio. PATRIOTIC PERIODICALS. WEEKLY: The Menace, Aurora, Mo. The Emancipator, Hicksville, Ohio. The Colorado Protestant, Denver, Colo. The American Citizen, Rochester, N. Y. The Sentinel of Liberty, Monroe, Wis. The Jeffersonian, Thomson, Ga. The Keystone American, 713 McGee Bldg., Pittsburgh, Pa. The National Protestant, Sioux City, Iowa. The Buckeye Patriot, Athens, Ohio. BI-WEEKLY: The Liberty Bell, Aurora, Mo. The Yellow Jacket, Moravian Falls, N. C. MONTHLY: The Protestant Magazine, Washington, D. C. The Converted Catholic, 331 W. 57th St., New York City. The Liberty Magazine, Washington, D. C. Watson’s Magazine, Thomson, Ga. The Crusader, Iola, Kan. Sovereign Odd Fellow, Gravette, Ark. The Railsplitter. Milan, 111. The Christian, Bay City, Mich. Church and State, Boston, Mass. THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 233 INDEX Pages Abbott, Leonard D., quoted 118 Albigenses, The 103 Alexander IV, in 1259 confirms Innocent IV’s authorization of torture by the Inquisi- tion 89 Alexander VI, Characterized 75 Sensuality his besetting vice 76 America; Campaign to make it “dominantly Catholic’” 115-181 American Federation of Catholic Societies de- scribed 226 Censorship of Press 123 Resolutions quoted o 152-153 Secretary of; reports on attempt to sup- press anti-Catholic journals.. 155 American Federation of Patriotic Societies. .226 Attempt to prevent Convention of 130-132 American Mechanics, Junior order of -..226 American Minute Men 227 American Party 205 American Protective Association 206 Anarchy and lawlessness mark attempt by Catholics to prevent freedom of speech.. 132 Annals, The; quoted in regard to medals 198 Arkansas, Legislature of; passes bill for in- spection of Convents 220 Augsburg, Confession; given to the world in 1530. . 110 Avignon; Rival papal Court established at, in 1378 71 Barnett, Rev. A. E., victim of Rome’s intoler- ance at Buffalo 140 Beziers; A town in which fifteen thousand Al- bigenses were slain 104 Black Pope 199; also 92 Black, Rev. William, murdered by Knights of Columbus at Marshall, Texas 140 Boles, Rev. W. H.. murderous assault upon, at Springfield, Illinois, by Catholics ..138 Bruno, Giordano. . . Ill Bulletin, of American Federation of Catholic Societies ; quoted 154 234 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pages Cabrera, Luis, on condition in Mexico 192 Cardinal's Oath 203 Catesby; Leader in Gunpowder Plot 100 Catholic Campaign to make America “domi- nantly Catholic," marked by intolerance and lawlessness 132 Catholics circulate through the mails litera- ture that Courts hold to be obscene. .173 Catholic Theory of Government 12 Catholics freely attack and arraign their op- ponents 142 Catholic Press attack on freedom of press. . . .161 Catholic Societies, American Federation of... 226 Resolutions of same, in New Orleans and Columbus, Ohio, seeking to abridge free- dom of religious discussion 152-153 Futile attempt to have Postmaster-General bar certain publications 155 An example of its contempt for American Constitution 156 Catholic Statistics of Church membership 184 A word about 185 Celibacy 199 Cellot, Jesuit author 83 Censorship of news, editorials and advertising in the press 123 Charles, the Bald; forced to admit throne as being the gift of pope 60 Charlemagne crowned Emperor of Holy Roman Empire by pope 60 Church and State, Divorce of considered 7-8 Union of, promotes persecution and oppres- sion 7 Union of, is a present-day demand of the Catholic hierarchy. 8 Papal history proves absolute divorce best serves man and society 70 Church, Roman Catholic; Its position and claims considered 12-24 Claims to be custodian of divine truth 12 Its infallibility insisted upon 12^13 Why it seeks to stamp out heresy 13 Its present attitude toward freedom of con- science, speech and assembly 14-15 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 235 Pages Is in direct opposition to democratic theory.13-15 If infallible, could not be the incarnation of murder 53 Sources of, the principle of autocracy of . . . 79 Double doctrine of 80 On marriage 188 Church property, value of, in the United States. . . 186 In greater New York City 186 Taxation of, advocated by James A. Gar- field and President Grant 187 Clearmont, Rev. Benjamin, kidnapped by Cath- olic mob at Pottsdam, New York 138 Clement IV; confirms authorization of Inno- cent IV and Alexander IV for torture by Inquisition 89 Clement XIV; suppressed the Jesuit order. . . 80 Coligny, Gaspard de, great Hugenot lead- er, killed in massacre of St. Bar- tholomew 103. 106 College of Cardinals 200 Collins, Rev. W. R., quoted 172 Columbus, Knights of, the Popes versus 206 History of 212 Congress; organized attempt of Catholics to abridge liberty of the press by legisla- tion in 157 Congregation, Roman 202 Constantine, donation of, another Papal for- gery 62 Convents, inspection of 219 Arkansas law for 220 Cranmer, Bishop Thomas, burned for heresy. 103 Creeds, statistics of the great, in the repub- lic 183-184 Of the world 185 Crowley, Rev. J. J., describes parochial schools. 21 Murderous assault on, by Knights of Colum- bus and other Catholics 133 Why Rome fears 134 Whoi he is 134 Barred from opera house in New Lexing- ton, Ohio 13# 236 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pages On the Cardinal's Oath 205 Curia, Roman 200 Curley, Mayor J. M., of Boston, would sup- press Guardians of Liberty 129 Dancey, B. F.; lawless attempt to prevent his speaking in Minnesota 137 Dayton, Ohio; how Catholics of, tried to pre- vent convention of A. F. of P. S 130 Decretals, Pseudo-Isidorean .79; also 62 Delinquents, Juvenile, and Houses of the Good Shepherd .215 Democracy, fundamental, theory outlined . . . 1-12 Why it demands divorce of Church and State 7-9 Supreme crisis that confronts 115 Dollinger, Professor J. J. I.; Catholic author- ity who exposed fraud of the pseudo- Isidorean Decretals 79 Quotation from his work, “The Pope and the Council” 79-80 Dominic; commenced the extermination of Al- bigenses by means of inquisition 104 Eastman, Rev. N. L. A., editor of “Gospel Worker,” arrested under obscenitjr law, but freed by court 145 Education, free secular considered 9-12 Evil of sectarian 9 Benefit of free secular 9-10 President Grant on popular non-sectarian. 10-11 Parochial 20-24 England, Rev. H. G., quoted in opposition to Fitzgerald-Gallivan bills 178 Encyclical 201 Encyclopedia, Catholic, cited on Inquisition. . 87 Ex Cathedra 201 Facts, statistical, for patriotic workers . . 182-186 Faulkner, Hon. J. A., quoted 164 Fawkes, Guido. . . 100 Ferdinand III of Castile establishes Spanish Inquisition under sanction of Pope Sixtus IV 85 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 237 Pages Ferrer, Francisco, and the Modern School... 112 Finley, Hon. D. E., quoted in opposition to the Fitzgerald-Gallivan bills 163 Fitzgerald, Hon. J. J., introduces bill to amend postal laws, draft of his bill 159 Forgeries in the interest of Papacy 62 Freedom; Jefferson’s ideal of 3-4 Freedom of speech, press, and assembly con- sidered 2-6 Freemasonry denounced by Leo XIII 37-39 Why Rome hates 39 Defense of, by J. D. Richardson. 40 Free Press Defense League 227 Gallivan, Hon. J. A., introduces bill to amend postal laws; draft of bill 160 Galileo, condemned by Inquisition and impris- oned 103; also see 98-100 Garfield, James A., advocates taxation of church property 187 Good Shepherd, Houses of 215 Government, two ideals of, in contrast 141 Grant, President U. S., advocates constitution- al amendment to preserve our public schools; opposes appropriation for any sectarian institutions 10-11 Urges taxation of church property 187 Gregory VIII; wish to establish one govern- ment with pope as only real head; insisted upon celibacy of the priesthood 68-69 Gregory IX; appointed Dominicans and Fran- ciscans as Inquisitors 88 Gregory XI; condemns nineteen theses of John Wycliffe. 72 Guarantees; constitutional, of freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion 3 Determined war upon, by Catholics 153 Guardians of Liberty; declaration of princi- ples of 224 Mayor Curley would suppress 129 Meeting prevented in St. Louis by Catho- lics 127-128 Gunpowder plot of 1605 100 Gury, F., great Jesuit 96 238 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pages Heresy; Roman Catholic position on 13 Defined., 201 Hierarchy defined 201 Roman Catholic; its theory of government considered 19-20 Hitchcock, F. H., declines to bar publications . 155 Holy See 201 Houses of Good Shepherd and Juvenile De- linquents. 215 Huss, John 107 Ideals of government; two in contrast 141 Index; Roman Catholic defined 97 Some historical facts about 98 Infallibility, dogma of 114 Innocent III; characterizes heresy as filth. ... 30 (Also see foot note 159.) Saw himself as God’s only representative, judge of all things . . . 69 Annulled the Magna Charter 70 Held that the Church should be supreme over State 70 Innocent IV ; issued bull incorporating the most bloody laws of Emperor Frederick II against heretics; commands temporal rulers under threat of excommunication to enforce penalties against heretics 92; also see 89 Innocent VIII; publicly acknowledges his sev- en children 75 Pontificate marked by venality and sloth. . . 75 Established a bank at Rome for sale of pardons ; 75 Inquisition, Spanish; authorized by Sixtus IV. 85 John Addington Symonds on 85 Catholic Encyclopedia on 87 Rev. J. A. Phillips on Catholic justification of 90 Rev. W. L. Sullivan, a former Catholic edu- cator, on 91 Some instruments of torture used by 94 Ireland, Archbishop, quoted 115 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 239 Pages Jefferson, Thomas; on Constitutional guaran- tees 3 On the democratic theory of freedom 3-5 Jerome of Prague burned for heresy 103 Jesuits; exposed by Pascal 83 Pius IX becomes their defender 78 Casuistry of 83 Description of the order 95 Their three great maxims 96 Expelled from Spain, Portugal and France. 97 Suppressed by Pope in 1773 97 Suppressed in various other lands 97 Present attitude of papacy toward 78 Present head of . . 97 Jews, persecution of, by Spanish Inquisition. . 86 Journalism, intemperate and scurrilous 124 Junior Order of American Mechanics 226 Kent, Chancellor; on freedom of the press. ... 6 King^ Rev. L. J.; Romanist mob interrupts services of 137 Kingsley, Canon Charles 29 Knights of Columbus described 212 The Popes versus 206 Knights of Luther 225 Latimer, Hugh Ill Leo III crowned Charlemagne 60 Leo XIII; opposition to American ideals of government 17-18, 28-37 Intellectual brilliancy of 28 Encyclical letters of, dealing with funda- mental democracy and liberal and pro- gressive ideals, considered 28-39 Characterizes heresy as a “crime” 30 Declares he stands in the place of God 31 Opposition to freedom of speech and press. 31-32 Union of Church and State upheld by 32 Right of Church to control the voter 33 Specific, condemnation of the bed-rock prin- ciples of democracy 34-86 Mourns over the overthrow of temporal pow- er in France 36-37 240 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pages Upholds divine right of kings and autocratic authority 37 Denounces Freemasonry 37-39 Teachings opposed to claims of Knights of Columbus 206 Lepicier, author of De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis 47 Liguori, St. Alphonsus; high position in the Church 84 His pernicious ethical teachings 84 His questions for priests to ask women too obscene to be uttered in public 147-151; also 174 Who he was and is. . . . 148 Lincoln, Abraham; his endorsement of Jeffer- son’s position on freedom 5 Littledale, R. F.; quotation from, on Jesuits. . 95 Lollards, The 105 Longacre, Prof. C. S. ; quoted 178 Lowry, Anna; convicted for reading from the Roman Catholic St. Liguori 147 Loyola, Ignatius de; founded Jesuit Order in 1934 95 Luther, Martin 109 Luther, Knights of 225 Magazine, The Protestant; Editor of quoted. .176 Maguires, Molly 132 Maher, Hon. J. P. ; defends the Fitzgerald- Gallivan bills 166 Markoe, William F 115 Marriage; Roman Catholic Church on 188 Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day 106 Matre, Anthony; shows how the Federation influences press and advertisers 122 Maurice, Frederic D 29 McKim, Rev. R. H.; quoted 168 Messenger of Sacred Heart; quoted 196 Mexico, Facts about. . . . , 190 Luis Cabrera on 192 Miles, Gen. N. A.; head of Guardians of Lib- erty; prevented from speaking in St. Louis. . 128 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 241 . Pages Platform speaker for Guardians of Liberty..l32 Modernism, Laws of; Pius X against. 49-50 Moon, Hon. J. A.; Chairman of Committee on Post Office and Post Roads 164 Motu Proprio ; Encyclical of Pius X, issued Sept. 10, 1910 49 Ne Temere; Piux X’s legislation on marriage. 190 Nethard, F.; Jesuit Inquisitor-General of Por- tugal, 1655, and later Cardinal 96 New Lexington, Ohio; Catholic mob triumph- ant in 135 Newman, Cardinal; fined $60,000 for slander and scurrilous language 171 Non-Catholics; Seventy million more than Catholics in United States 182 Obscenity Laws; How they have been abused. 144 Oelwein, Iowa; Scene of assault upon Mr. Crowley 183 Oldcastle, Sir John; burned for heresy 103 Organizations, Patriotic 223-229 Papacy; Clings today to same theory held in Dark Ages 52 Defined 202 Papal States 202 Party, American 205 Pascal; Exposure of moral code of Jesuits... 96 Past; Why necessary to recall it 51 Patriotic Periodicals 232 Patriotic Platform Speakers 231 Patriotic Societies and organizations 223 American Federation of 226 Phelan, Rev. D. S.; Treasonable utterances ... 126 Philadelphia Catholics hold mass meeting to have “Menace” barred 157 Phillips, Rev. J. A.; quotation from on Cath- olic justification of Inquisition 90 Phillips, Wendell; on the democratic ideal of freedom 6 Pius IX; His opposition to democracy 16-17 Syllabus of, considered 25-28 A friend of the Jesuits 78 242 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pag Pius X; His hostility to democratic ideals. . . . 18-20, 41-1 Denounces popular sovereignty and advo- cates class rule 42 Declares popular sovereignty opposed to Catholic doctrine. . . 43- Intolerant of the spirit of democracy and brotherhood 45- Rev. W. L. Sullivan on his opposition to progress 46- Gives benediction to Lepicier, who defended right of Church to murder heretics - X)n Protestant Reformation 48- < His laws against modernism 49-J Marriage legislation, Ne Temere.. 11 Popes of Rome I Press, Freedom of 2 Constitutional guarantees of Jefferson on importance of Chancellor Kent on 6- Leo XIIFs opposition to 31-Sj Press, Catholic; urges support of Fitzgerald- Gallivan bills in the United States If Press Censorship bills; hearing on, before Congressional Committee 163-18 Press, Catholic 21 Press, Patriotic 232-23 Property, Untaxed church; in United States.. 18 In New York 18 Protestant, The Magazine; Editor of, quoted. .17] Protestants; Statistics of church membership.IS Si S< [Reformation, Protestant 4 Pius X on 48-4 Relics, Medals and Badges 13 Renaissance, Some Popes of 7 Reynolds, D. J.; President of the A. F. of P. S.; treatment accorded, by Greater Dayton Association 13 Ridley, Nicholas; Burned as heretic 10 Richardson, J. D.; In defense of Freemasonry. Romanism, Politico-Ecclesiastical; Determined effort of, to establish bureaucratic censor- ship of the press 15 St a THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. 243 Pages Rome, Popes of . 55 Bishops of, first three centuries traditional rather than historical 55 Salter, William; First martyr at stake in England 102 Savonarola 108 Schools, Free or public; a necessary function of. a free state 9 How they discourage sectarianism and racial and class prejudice 10 President Grant suggested Constitutional Amendment forbidding teaching sectarian tenets in 10-11 Parochial schools 20-24 Bishop Spalding on origin 21 Real reason for establishment of 22-24 Simonds, John Addington; Quoted on Popes of the Renaissance 73-76 On the Inquisition 85-87 Sixtus IV; Authorizes re-establishment of In- quisition in 1478 85 His scandalous career 73-74 Societies; American Federation of Catholic. .213 American Federation of Patriotic 220 Society, Catholic Truth 115 Spalding, Bishop; On origin of parochial schools 21 Speakers, Patriotic 231 Speech, freedom of 2-7 Constitutional guarantee of 3 Jefferson on 3-5 Wendell Phillips on. 6 rpurgeon, Rev. O. L.; murderous assault on, in Colorado .139 p3t. Bartholomew’s Day, massacre of 106 !; Sullivan, Rev. William L.; characterization of distinguished Catholic educator who hds renounced Catholicism 91 , Quotation from, on intolerance of Pius X. 19-20 1 On the Inquisition 91 244 THE PATRIOT’S MANUAL. Pagi Tablet; Roman Catholic paper quoted 15 Tharp, Rev. Wallace; attempt by Catholics to prevent his speaking in Pittsburgh 13 Theories of government; two mighty world, considered 1-2 Theory, democratic, in a nutshell. 1- Torquemada, Spanish Inquisitor-General 8 “Truth-Seeker;” quotation from 12 Urban IV; makes universal excommunication of civil authorities who impede or delay action of Inquisition 9 Urban VI; has six cardinals executed 7 Van Dyke, Rev. J. S., on papal relics 19 Vatican, description of . . . v .11 Council of 1870 that formally endorsed Papal infallibility 11 Vigilance committee, established by Pius X, to enforce his laws against Modernism. . 5 Vincent, Rev. Clarence; quoted 18 Waldenses, The 10 Washington, warning of, against the insidious wiles of foreign influence 4 Watson, Hon. Thomas E., quoted on early Popes I The case of 14 A word about this Southern editor 14 Prosecuted for publishing St. Liguori’s questions for priests to ask women, though questions were published in Latin; second trial of IS “Western Watchman”; Quotation from. . . 124-15 Westphalia; The Peace of | Williams, Rev. G. F.; opposes Fitzgerald and Gallivan bills 17 Wilson, Robert; Lawless attempt to break up his meeting at Carbondale 1? Wycliffe, John 1C Zedtwitz, . Baroness von; Exposes the double doctrine of the Church of Rome $ 1 t