Chapter IV: , VII (213)

The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the
Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in
Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul
and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was
a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was
first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.
(1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded
himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the
Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.
The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban
was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial
power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment
when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany
he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus
Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence
Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the
papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's
attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important
addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in
1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the
Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he
met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the
Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and
Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was
induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim
aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was
completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating
treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [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] are of
very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only
important questions in which the papacy was involved in the
latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists
and the relations with Louis XIV."

_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7;
period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4)._

_T. A. Trollope,
Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._

_A. Robertson,
Fra Paolo Sarpi._

PAPACY: A. D. 1621.
Election of Gregory XV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
[Transcriber's note:
2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]

Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
{2462}
Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
to every nation on the globe."

_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1623.
Election of Urban VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.
The Valtelline War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
Growth of Nepotism.

Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so
actively followed up by his successors, that even a short
reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.
That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a
share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a
hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with
large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of
Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and
was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The
Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the
Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the
Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with
the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted
that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom
in which they were not expressly included. On the death of
Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes
of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever
seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were
able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in
the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of
Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was
abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the
streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a
military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation
in protecting the property of their employers. This was then
the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,
though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of
energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent
brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under
his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their
ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system
out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited
itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.
The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,
from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where
she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their
arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for
her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her
daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,
having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after
renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.
The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided
Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the
ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to
the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a
deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,
and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three
days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long
dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its
interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.
[VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,
and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His
first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was
allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the
loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best
established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,
the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on
his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at
Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding
with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in
consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively
unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all
who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After
discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of
further attention to business, and spent his days in literary
leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,
from the growth of the constitutional principle. The
cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official
secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible
advisers."

_G. Trevor,
Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,
pages 416-418._

PAPACY: A. D. 1646.
The Hostility of Mazarin and France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

PAPACY: A. D. 1653.
The first condemnation of Jansenism.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

PAPACY: A. D. 1667.
Election of Clement IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1670.
Election of Clement X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1676.
Election of Innocent XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.

"It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the
papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,
and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due
limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince
hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The
prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it
pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the
clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the
clergy of France did support their king without scruple
against the pope. The declarations they published were from
year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal
authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.
'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian
ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and
was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up
by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the
manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat
assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for
example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded
the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the
pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.
{2463}
But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it
imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the
pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope
is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the
assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the
kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which
was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is
declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal
authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the
unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion
of contemporaries, that although France might remain within
the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the
threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king
exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles
of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated
in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to
a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,
who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was
still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this
declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and
preferred by the king before all other candidates for
episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them
spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those
sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they
venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These
complications were still further perplexed by the fact that
Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless
extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which
he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own
perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great
service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that
Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but
this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of
conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such
methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the
temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually
arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome
with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry
forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the
ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,
but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been
easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly
abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved
the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and
chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the
Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the
ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter
had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The
king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a
general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the
nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he
had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of
Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had
approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far
had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome
excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;
thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;
a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in
fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent
refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted
for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to
the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to
the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above
all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in
Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were
menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general
opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope
had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the
Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of
Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to
compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of
the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent
XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French
ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of
August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of
the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into
negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the
French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a
pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a
purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio
Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent
XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued
for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas
proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in
fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures
discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be
considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:
'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess
our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not
until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent
accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions
only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he
retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we
perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its
prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of
monarchs."

_L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 8, section 16 (volume 2)._

PAPACY:A. D. 1689.
Election of Alexander VIII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1691.
Election of Innocent XII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700.
Election of Clement XI.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
Declining Powers.

The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
{2464}
He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …

See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
of Naples

See
GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating
position. Political events had occurred … which served to show
very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as
in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His
undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of
his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and
to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to
the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713
[see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the
dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful
occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from
that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and
palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit
to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for
it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his
fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest
that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty
over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,
it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,
which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the
sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a
further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in
the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and
anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of
Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,
and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the
seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the
other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the
eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …
The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers
which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the
death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,
led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of
the great events which during the eighteenth century were
agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political
victories."

_A. R. Pennington,
Epochs of the Papacy,
chapter 10._

PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

PAPACY: A. D. 1721.
Election of Innocent XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1724.
Election of Benedict XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1730.
Election of Clement XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1740.
Election of Benedict XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1758.
Election of Clement XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PAPACY: A. D. 1769.
Election of Clement XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1773.
Suppression of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1775.
Election of Pius VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
Founding of the Roman Episcopate
in the United States of America.

In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church
in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of
Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its
bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of
Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with
their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and
Bardstown, in Kentucky."

_J. A. Russell,
The Catholic Church in the United States
(History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,
pages 16-18)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution at Avignon.
Reunion of the Province with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

PAPACY: A. D. 1796.
First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
Treaty of Tolentino.
Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
French occupation of Rome.
Formation of the Roman Republic.
Removal of the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

PAPACY: A. D. 1800.
Election of Pius VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1802.
The Concordat with Napoleon.
Its Ultramontane influence.

See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.

PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.

Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a
tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope
resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not
obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's
plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the
Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close
his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees
of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act
as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he
was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his
predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not
agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession
of Rome and the Roman State."

_H. Martin,
Popular History of France, since 1789,
volume 2, chapter 12._

{2465}

In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken
possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the
resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an
imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,
Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the
ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for
nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of
Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the
actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare
war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of
Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The
interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of
Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not
be interrupted by a hostile power.'"

_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 51 (volume 11)._

"The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon
paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the
cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He
disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles
of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French
commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,
carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a
decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming
the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the
States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the
city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope
should continue to have his seat there, and that he should
enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this
decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope
protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,
and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to
complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of
excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors
of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but
without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the
first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in
which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who
wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable
temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that
of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius
VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would
renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of
the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,
where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all
been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the
spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of
February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the
eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even
ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time
at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while
oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope
refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and
then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper
measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were
commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation
to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the
wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little
more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and
rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,
appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the
Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the
imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the
temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum
assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the
pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four
articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …
even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they
offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is
that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that
he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the
charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the
Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the
winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this
time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an
English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the
emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This
unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel
day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;
but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.
They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray
who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care
also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret
was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,
June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his
arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to
receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long
time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful
journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which
they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by
Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of
Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the
Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The
Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to
a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,
1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating
without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them
out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,
either because he repented not having finished with them at
Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do
more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been
done by the council, its commissions, and its most able
negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which
were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father
had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and
prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to
the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state
of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated
incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled
with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the
evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign
pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and
cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well
prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which
was to assure him what he believed to be a success.
{2466}
On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress
Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father
unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.
Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be
induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to
the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to
him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet
a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.
On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their
signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the
usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had
treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that
the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in
Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,
should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his
domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,
and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an
income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,
whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should
be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be
re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and
that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that
the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman
bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,
and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former
revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant
sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune
time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the
bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well
as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the
Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,
and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn
of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty
bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,
and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection
with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty
occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that
that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had
been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced
bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the
exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,
on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to
repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy
Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it
must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what
was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had
made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as
preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided
nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the
arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This
premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly
regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation
which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,
1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by
the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make
any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of
it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the
other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of
January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared
it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and
ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the
archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case
of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the
tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given
momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro
returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,
for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that
which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab
irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the
campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several
times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.
Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue
when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the
pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to
Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and
who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the
States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his
indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to
re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his
brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor
was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,
announced that the pope was taking possession again of the
part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and
Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go
all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on
April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn
entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."

_Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 6 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_D. Silvagni,
Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,
chapters 35-39 (volume 2)._

_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 5-8._

_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12._

_Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
Captain Bingham,
volumes 2-3._

_Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l)._

_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 13 and 16._

PAPACY: A. D. 1814.
Restoration of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1815.
Restoration of the Papal States.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

PAPACY: A. D. 1823.
Election of Leo XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1829.
Election of Pius VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831.
Election of Gregory XVI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
Election of Pius IX.
His liberal reforms.
Revolution at Rome.
The Pope's flight.
His restoration by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

{2467}

PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.

"The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an
official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained
faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of
priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of
their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining
some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance
her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688
it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,
nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling
him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This
policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar
Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till
1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on
appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve
of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four
Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year
Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight
Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but
persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was
awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked
the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by
restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.
… The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight
vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring
immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think
about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For
two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of
vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been
abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to
the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for
re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'
England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,
Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an
Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the
London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to
it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon
him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The
publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The
effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from
the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and
continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and
by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of
England, who for so many years have been separated from the
see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to
the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to
punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's
prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to
moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by
denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late
aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …
inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of
our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of
the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus
occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded
to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of
ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It
declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to
maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is
so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words
as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the
Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the
'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in
the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the
assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates
of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to
them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and
void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to
them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a
Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of
Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;
but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought
forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill
merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume
territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the
Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by
some chemical process the Government had extracted all the
milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,
but it was never put into execution.

_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 23 (volume 5)._

ALSO IN.:
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 20 (volume 2)._

_J. Stoughton,
Religion in England, 1800-1850,
volume 2, chapter 13._

PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
Promulgation of the Dogma of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

"The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
{2468}
Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
8th."

_A. de Montor,
The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
volume 2, pages 924-926._

PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
The Encyclical and the Syllabus.

"On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical
[a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the
Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church
throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the
Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,
condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.
The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are
set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.
1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;
2. Moderated Rationalism;
3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;
4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,
Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;
5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;
6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself
as in its relations with the Church;
7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;
8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;
9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;
10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.

Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,
and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,
Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.
Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and
Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the
pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance
excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of
the enemies of the Church."

_J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 33._

The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,
followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:

To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,
we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic
blessing: