READING HALL THE DOORS OF WISDOM

HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES

PAUL V. (1605-1621)

CHAPTER VI.

Paul V’s Reforming Activity within the Church. Suspension of the Thomist and Molinist Controversy. Canonizations.

In consequence of the stir created by the dispute with Venice the idea has taken root that that conflict was the chief event of the pontificate of the Borghese Pope. This view, which confines itself too exclusively to externals, has caused not a few historians increasingly to overlook the widespread activity of the Pope within the Church. As against such a conception impartial students acknowledge that precisely this side of Paul V’s activity was as extensive as it was successful

A man of such deep piety and glowing zeal for souls, of such strong will and firm character as Paul V, was not likely to allow himself to lose heart because of the difficulties of the situation. In the midst of the manifold cares which the burden of the supreme pontificate laid upon him, he put all his trust in Him who, without any co-operation on his part, had raised him to the most exalted dignity in the world. In all the offices which he had previously held the Pope had most strictly complied with existing laws. Now he was more determined than ever to carry out his duties as Supreme Head of the Church with the utmost conscientiousness. When replying to letters of congratulation he invariably begged for the help of fervent prayers. In this spirit he proclaimed, on June 28th, 1605, a universal jubilee.

One of the first measures of Paul V in the internal government of the Church was to inculcate anew, in an ordinance published on October 19th, 1605, the duty of residence laid upon all ecclesiastics by the Council of Trent, and for which Clement VIII had recently striven. No one enjoying a benefice could be exempt from this obligation. In a consistory of November 7th, 1605, the Pope announced that he had instructed his vicar in Rome, Cardinal Pamfili, to ask all bishops then in the Curia, to return to their dioceses; even Cardinals with dioceses were bound by this law. There could be no question of a dispensation; anyone refusing to observe the duty of residence must resign his see; if nevertheless he appropriated the revenues of his charge he was guilty of mortal sin. It was thought in Rome that Cardinal Bellarmine had persuaded the Pope to take this step. When, in November, 1605, Cardinal Aldobrandini asked for a dispensation from residence for a certain bishop he was unable to obtain anything. At this same time all bishops still in Rome without leave were informed not to presume to show themselves in the papal chapel.

Towards the end of November, 1605, Cardinal Valenti left for his diocese of Faenza and at Christmas Cardinal Sannesi repaired to his bishopric of Orvieto. Some Cardinals resigned their sees or made preparations for their departure as soon as the cold season would be over. In the judgment of the Pope only those engaged in some legation in the Pontifical States were exempt from the duty of residence.

In this respect all expostulations proved in vain. The rigid Cardinal Bellarmine wished the Pope to go still further and not to bestow bishoprics at all upon the Cardinals since they found residence difficult. However, Paul V pointed out to the Cardinal that such a procedure was contrary to the spirit of the Tridentine decrees and as regards the exemptions granted to the Cardinals he appealed to the opinion of the celebrated Gregory of Valencia.

Although he refrained from excessive rigorism, Paul V never lost sight of this question of residence. An edict of October, 1607, based on the prescriptions of Trent, decrees that all bishops would forfeit their revenues if they had not repaired to their dioceses within a fortnight. Simultaneously with this order another decree laid down that no bishop was to come to Rome without leave of the Pope. Beneficed ecclesiastics were to be in residence within nine days. Though in the sequel opposition was not lacking, the Pope remained firm. From time to time fresh edicts were issued inculcating again and again the duty of residence for all beneficed ecclesiastics.

What advantages flowed from the bishops’ presence in their dioceses is shown by the example of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini. That prelate was appointed to the see of Spoleto on October 17th, 1608, with the obligation, however, of resigning the bishopric of Nazaret, in Southern Italy. On finding himself detained in Rome by his duties as Prefect of the Segnatura di Grazia with which the Pope had entrusted him, he began by having the diocese visited by his Vicar General. As soon as he was able to do so, the Cardinal left Rome, to take possession of his diocese (1610). A Dominican, a Friar Minor and two Jesuits accompanied him. He now displayed an activity truly in accord with the spirit of Trent. A visitation of the whole diocese was announced; it started with the episcopal city. Whilst suppressing abuses Barberini made special provision for the religious instruction of the young. Every evening the parish priests were convoked to the episcopal palace there to receive the necessary instructions. Barberini, whose personal life was very simple, made immediate and generous provision for the poor of the city. At the conclusion of the visitation of Spoleto he undertook the inspection of every part of his diocese. On this journey his only companions were his Vicar General and a few familiars. The Cardinal penetrated even into the lonely mountain districts of Norcia and Leonessa. At times he himself imparted religious instruction to the country people. Everywhere he insisted on an exemplary life being led by the clergy as well as on regular preaching and catechizing. He likewise took action against banditry. The Cardinal also suitably endowed the ecclesiastical seminary founded by his predecessor in the See of Spoleto. In addition to this he erected two smaller seminaries at Spello and Visso. He founded a special association for the purpose of forming priests for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance; those who would not join were refused posts. The Cardinal also interested himself in the reform of the convents of nuns. The hermits who dwelt on the picturesque heights of Monte Luco and whom Michelangelo visited on one occasion likewise felt the touch of his reforming hand.

The sick, no less than the poor, were the objects of the solicitude of the indefatigable prelate. He often personally attended the dying. To crown his reforming activities, Cardinal Barberini, after the pattern of Charles Boromeo, convoked a diocesan synod at Spoleto. The decrees of this assembly were published on September 13th, 1616.

The admirable activity of Maffeo Barberini at Spoleto was imitated by other Cardinals in their respective dioceses: as, for instance, by Giustiniani in the Sabine country; Ludovisi at Bologna; Aldobrandini at Ravenna; Federigo Borromeo at Milan; Valenti at Faenza; Bichi at Siena; Lante at Todi; Galamina at Recanati and Loreto; Muti at Viterbo; Carafa at Naples; Caraccioli at Tropea; Centini at Mileto and Macerata; Scaglia at Melfi; Doria at Palermo. Many bishops vied with these Cardinals. For their benefit a disciple of Philippo Neri, Antonio Talpa, wrote an instruction to guide them in a careful administration of their dioceses. This document was much esteemed by Paul V.

In Rome, supported by his Vicars General, Pamfili and Millini, Paul V promoted the cure of souls, the frequent reception of the Eucharist, the Forty Hours’ prayer and the pilgrimage to the seven churches. The great processions and the solemn general Communions instituted for those occasions were soon copied in many cities of Italy. The Roman Seminary enjoyed the Pope’s support. In 1611 he caused seven parish churches to be erected in the Roman campagna.

The commission of reform, whose activities had begun under Clement VIII, was convoked anew in November, 1607, for, as Cardinal Bellarmine remarked, human frailty makes constant correction a necessity. To this end the great theologian could think of nothing better than a strict execution of the reform decrees of Trent. This view was likewise advocated by the author of a memorandum which demanded for the whole Church the literal application of these decrees. In the work of the reform, the memorandum declares, the first thing to do is to seek the glory of God before all else, then to amend one’s own life so as to encourage others to do in like manner; this procedure is greatly to be preferred to compulsion. For the purpose of ascertaining the true nature of existing evils, and with a view to applying appropriate remedies, the writer suggests that the Pope should convoke in Rome special synods presided over by himself. These synods should be composed, at first, of the bishops of Italy, and hereafter those of Spain, France, Germany and other countries should also be convened. The agenda of these Roman synods should be provided by previous provincial synods. Everywhere the reform should begin with the higher clergy and then to extend itself to all ranks, down to the lowest order. Special attention should be paid to the formation of the clergy; for this purpose seminaries should be erected everywhere or suitable provision made for the existing ones. The seminaries, as well as the monasteries, should be examined by the Apostolic Visitors. The arduousness of the task should not deter the Pope, all the more as he had ascended the Apostolic See whilst still in full physical vigour; the necessary time to carry out the work would not be wanting.

Although Paul V did not carry out all these suggestions his intervention in ecclesiastical affairs of every Catholic country proves that he was honestly determined to give force everywhere to the reform decrees of Trent. He was particularly careful in his appointment of new bishops. In this respect his preferences were for religious; from the Order of St. Dominic he chose nearly sixty bishops. In the spring of 1618, through the consistory of Cardinals, he introduced certain improvements in the method of nominations to bishoprics and monasteries.

Soon after his elevation it was rumoured that Paul V would carry through a reform of the procedure of papal elections which his premature death had prevented Leo XII from realizing. In effect the Cardinalitial Congregation appointed by the late Pope was strengthened by the addition of new members and was once more charged with the examination of the draft of a Bull concerning the conclave which had been drawn up under Clement VIII. But, as Paul V informed the Cardinals on November 7th, 1605, he was unwilling to move in the matter without first ascertaining the personal opinion of every member of the Sacred College. By December this had been done, yet the Bull of Reform did not appear. According to hints thrown out by well-informed people, it was in all probability the Cardinals heading various parties who, for fear of losing their influence, once again delayed the completion of the work.

Like his predecessors, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V and Clement VIII, Paul V also interested himself in the compilation of a new collection of decretals. The draft already printed in 1598, for the benefit of the Commission of Cardinals, was revised in 1607 and 1608, but no publication ensued. The explanation is probably to be sought in the unsatisfactory lay-out of the whole scheme and in the politico-ecclesiastical situation of the time.

Greater success marked Paul V’s continuation of the reform of the liturgical books which he brought to completion with the publication of the Rituale Romanum. The Popes of the period of the Catholic restoration had already corrected the Breviary, the Missal and the Roman Pontifical. The Borghese Pope now carried out a similar work on the liturgical book which contains the formularies of the functions appertaining to the cure of souls. In this instance there was no question of producing a revised and improved edition of an existing volume but rather of compiling a new set of formularies for use by the pastoral clergy in the administration of the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Matrimony), and for various blessings, especially those distinct from the Office, as at funerals, processions and other extra-liturgical services. At one time priests themselves were wont to compile such books. It was only in the course of the twelfth century that a fixed type of ritual books for such purposes took shape and at first chiefly for monasteries. Since the invention of the printing press many such manuals had been published. Samples of private collections of this kind, which contain the formularies in use in the Roman Church, were the Sacerdotale of the Dominican Alberto Castellani and that of Francesco Samarino, a prebendary of the Lateran. To these must be added a similar work by Cardinal Santori, undertaken at the instigation of Gregory XIII and printed during his pontificate and that of Gregory XIV at the expense of the Holy See. However, the book was never published owing to the death of the Cardinal in 1602. Paul V took up the task once more. Baronius’ counsel was to be asked for, but the Cardinal died on June 30th, 1607. In 1612 the Pope appointed a commission of Cardinals and scholars which made great use of the excellent work of Santori, a fact expressly mentioned in the brief of June 20th, 1614, concerning the new Ritual. A wise self-restraint prompted the Pope to refrain both from enforcing the universal adoption of the new Ritual under threat of penalties as well as from abrogating the existing Rituals peculiar to certain dioceses and religious Orders; he contented himself with the expression of a keen desire to see the new book made use of by all bishops, parish priests and abbots.

The excellence of the Rituale Romanum is sufficiently proved by its rapid diffusion. It has remained unsurpassed to this day. By its means many abuses, more particularly certain superstitious practices, were removed and in the administration of the sacraments, in the blessings and consecrations which are the province of priests, as well as in a number of ecclesiastical functions, processions and other services, greater uniformity and dignity as well as a noble simplicity were realized. A prescription of the Rituale Romanum, which binds every parish priest to make a census of the faithful entrusted to his care, indicating those who had received the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confirmation, had been previously observed in Rome. At Milan it had been enforced by Carlo Borromeo. These census books, which henceforth came increasingly into use, supply valuable information as regards statistics and in large cities, such as Rome, even about family history and topographical details. These catalogues are not only important for the history of civilization in general, they also give us more than one interesting glimpse into the administration of a parish in those days. If a parish priest conscientiously kept these registers he had perforce to visit every household at least once a year. In this way an opportunity offered itself of getting to know every member of his parish and their different needs. Thus the prescriptions of the Rituale Romanum met one of the most strongly felt needs of our own time, that is, contact as extensive and as intensive as possible between the priest and individual households. An extraordinary Congregation of Cardinals undertook the examination of all indulgences. It consisted of Cardinals Baronius, Arigoni, Bellarmine and Pamfili.

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING DIVINE GRACE.

During the last years of the pontificate of Clement VIII the controversy concerning the efficacy of divine grace had dragged on without leading to a peaceful solution. Paul V must have been all the more inclined to end, by a papal decision, discussions which so laboriously succeeded one another because, whilst still a Cardinal, he had been obliged to be present at nearly every congregation which dealt with the question of grace and at his election he had been pressed to issue a decision in the matter. The Spanish envoy, at the bidding of his sovereign, urged the Pope in this direction, but he did not immediately succeed in persuading the Pope to overcome his hesitation. It was one thing, Paul V insisted, to take part in the sessions as a Cardinal and another, to feel justified, as Pope, in pronouncing a final judgment.

It would seem that soon after Paul V’s accession, both parties to the dispute sought to influence the Pope in their favour. The Dominican Lemos relates that on August 4th, 1605, he was summoned before Paul V who commissioned him to draw up a list of those propositions in this difficult matter which he deemed to be heretical and those which he held to be Catholic. On August 10th Lemos handed in the desired list as well as a memorandum in which he enlarges upon the necessity and antiquity of the expression  “physical predetermination”; as for the thing itself, he thought there was no need of further discussion for there was no longer any doubt about it. But during three months Lemos endeavoured all the more energetically to convince, by word of mouth, the Pope, the Cardinals and the bishops of the truth of the Dominican view. As for the Jesuits, towards whom Clement VIII had shown himself so unfavourable in this matter, they felt a new confidence under his successor. Not long after his election Paul V gave them a token of his goodwill when he consented to the introduction of the Apostolic process for the beatification of their founder and by recalling Cardinal Bellarmine to Rome as one of his advisors. Another favourable omen for them was the fact that Cardinal Du Perron, one of the most respected theologians of his time and an ardent adversary of Protestantism, was in residence in Rome since several months. In the question of the doctrine of grace Du Perron stood wholeheartedly on the side of the Jesuits.

A survey of the points in dispute similar to that which Paul V had demanded from Lemos was presented to the Pope by the other side. The points on which Dominicans and Jesuits agreed and those on which they differed were set out in two columns; a third list recorded the propositions rejected by both parties, but which, the Jesuits complained, were quite wrongly ascribed to Molina.

Another memorial presented to the Pope on June 26th and drawn up by Fernando de la Bastida, who had been the mouthpiece of the Jesuits in the last discussions in presence of Clement VIII, summed up under twelve headings the reasons for which the champions of Molina felt justified in protesting against the censures to which he had been subjected by the Roman congregation. Bastida’s objections to the competence of the members of the commission as well as to their procedure had been, to a large extent, urged before. He now begs the Pope to have inquiries made whether or not it was true that the first censure was pronounced against Molina without his having been heard in his own defence, or someone else having spoken in his defence; whether it was true that the commission discovered more than sixty erroneous propositions in a book in which men of great learning and even whole universities failed to find as much as a single one; whether it was true that the censure of the whole work was drawn up in less than two months, a hardly long enough period in which to read the book, whereas the ensuing discussions, though spread over several years, had not led to a conclusive judgment on even a fraction of the questions that arise from the book. Likewise, in the form of a petition for an inquiry, further grievances were brought forward, namely that erroneous propositions were ascribed to Molina which he had never taught; that theses were styled erroneous which are universally accepted by theologians; that the commission had been entrusted with the examination of its own censures and thus was judge in its own cause.

Besides these grievances and accusations, which had been raised before, this document tells us much that is new and surprising. The Pope should cause an inquiry to be made, so we read, whether the whole censure was not the work of one individual who never held a chair of scholastic theology and never wrote a thing that would show the expert; and whether it was true that in the country of his birth, Spain, he would not be thought capable of dealing even with such things as suits of the Inquisition, or that according to common law, he would not be allowed to appear, were it only as a witness, in a civil process. The last three points of the memorandum throw fresh light on Clement VIII’s judgment on the commission and on his attitude towards the Jesuits. It is also stated that Clement VIII expressed his displeasure with the dishonest procedure of the commission with such vigour that there were those who saw a connection between the Pope’s dissatisfaction and the death of the chairman of the commission, the bishop of Cariati. For these and “for other considerations on which it is difficult to dwell here but which we could communicate by word of mouth should your Holiness wish it”, so the memorandum proceeds, “we have often protested in the life-time of our holy Father Clement VIII both in writing and orally, against the aforesaid censors; we warned his Holiness, and we now renew our protest, that in a matter of such importance we do not consider these men to be judges possessed of the necessary knowledge and impartiality; rather do we hold them to be more biased than the Dominicans themselves, and men who obstinately cling to their opinions as they have done in the past”. De la Bastida winds up with a request that Paul V would order an immediate inquiry in order to ascertain whether it was true that Clement VIII “gave us an assurance, not once but many times, that these people would not be allowed to judge this question and that the decision would not be based on their memorandum that in this matter we could trust him. This we did in the sure expectation that the discussions would lay bare the arguments on which both parties build up their system; these would then be submitted to persons possessed of the necessary competence and impartiality”. These sharp accusations de la Bastida declares to be true, down to the smallest detail, and he offers to substantiate them by documentary evidence.

The Jesuits were unsuccessful in their demand for the removal of those who had hitherto acted as their judges. On September 2nd, 1605, Paul V convened the former Roman Congregation as well as a few Cardinals in his presence in order to deliberate on the means of settling the dispute once for all. It was resolved to pick up the thread where it had been allowed to drop under Clement VIII. There still existed an ordinance of that Pope concerning the dispute, but his death had prevented its being given effect. In fifteen theses the document summed up St. Augustine’s teaching on grace. Paul V ordered this exposition to be examined at the next disputation which was to be held on September 14th, 1605.

On the appointed day a meeting took place of the members of the Roman Congregation and a few Cardinals, among whom were Du Perron and Bellarmine, the Pope himself presiding. However, no sooner had the document of the fifteen propositions been read than the old difficulties raised their heads. Bellarmine granted that most of these propositions were indeed in harmony with the teaching of St. Augustine, but some of them needed further elucidation and, considered as a whole, they did not fully represent the views of the great Doctor of the Church. He himself then submitted another paper which, in his opinion, was free from the blemishes he had pointed out. In the next Congregation, on September 20th, the identical difficulty reappeared. The speaker for the Jesuits, Fernando de la Bastida, unreservedly adopted the view of Bellarmine; in his opinion it was necessary to complete and elucidate the fifteen points. However, on the representation of the Dominican, Thomas de Lemos, these self-same fifteen points were an irreproachable presentment of the teaching of the great African. Thus there appeared no way out of the impasse and they needs must once again plunge headlong into a wearisome discussion of the texts of St. Augustine.

However, one thing at least was clearly established: if they were going to tread anew the path by which Clement VIII had sought a solution of this most complicated question they were faced by the prospect of endless discussions. If on a previous occasion, the examination of the teaching of Cassian had occupied seven whole months, how many months would it take before they could hope to arrive at a clear understanding of the opinions of St. Augustine? Paul V may well have quailed before the prospect. So he left St. Augustine alone and gave orders to turn to the main point of the controversy, the one on which minds were divided, the question, that is, whether grace moves us to free good acts not only by a moral influence, as if exhorting or prompting us, but also by an immediate influence, and whether this influence may properly be called physical predetermination.

Thus a decisive turn in the controversy seemed to be at hand. Until then the influence of the Dominicans had exclusively determined the progress of the discussions; but the Jesuits had now obtained what they had so long prayed for and insisted upon, viz. the discussion of physical predetermination. Accordingly, in the very next Congregation, on October 12th, 1605, Fernando de la Bastida prefaced his dissertation with an expression of his satisfaction that at last, after forty sittings, they had reached the very heart of the controversy. But it must be admitted that this was the view of the Jesuits only. In the opinion of the Dominicans, the situation was quite different; it was merely a matter of form, they thought, that physical predetermination should be discussed at all, seeing that for years the commission had acknowledged that doctrine as part of the deposit of the faith.

In eight congregations Bastida then expounded the question in detail. In the first session he sought to define the nature of physical predetermination; at the next two meetings he refuted it with scriptural arguments. This he followed up, in three sessions, with reasons drawn from the Councils, St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers. He seems to have taken particular care, in the session of January 12th, 1606, to set side by side quotations from the writings of the defenders of the thesis he was attacking and from those of Calvin, with a view to showing their resemblance. The last two sittings were devoted to a discussion of the opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Scholastics and the more recent theologians. In the session of February 22nd, 1606, which was the last disputation between Dominicans and Jesuits, the latter submitted a short account of their teaching as well as testimonials from universities and individual scholars who had pronounced in their favour. By order of the Pope copies of this exposition were distributed to the Cardinals, one copy being filed with the Acts. Paul V assisted in person at the disputations; everybody praised the patience and attention with which he followed the interminable dissertations. What is more, the Pope even found time for a personal study of the intricate question.

The Commission then received the following command from the Pope: each of its members was to give an answer in writing to the following four questions: which questions concerning grace should be defined and which should be, condemned? In what do the Catholic and the heretical views differ? Lastly was it expedient to publish a Bull on the subject, and if so, what form should it take?

The consultors were at work from March to September, 1606. Some of them knew how to compress their opinions, others were so diffuse that the memorandums made a volume of five hundred pages in folio.

There could be no question of the Pope perusing all this literary output. So the whole pile went to join the stock which had accumulated in the course of the dispute and which reposed, unread, in the dust of the archives. The consultors were then commissioned to take counsel among themselves and to present a joint memorandum. Between October 5th and November 23rd, nine deliberations were held, with the result that forty-two propositions from the writings of Molina were submitted to the Pope for condemnation.

Three of four of the consultors did not at once agree with their companions, but in the end only one clung obstinately to his divergent opinion, namely the Carmelite Antonio Bovio, who had recently been preconized as bishop of Molfetta. His answer to the four questions of the Pope point to the path which Paul V eventually took and for that reason it deserves special notice.

BOVIO’S MEMORIAL.

Bovio roundly declares that he cannot see in what way the doctrine of physical predetermination differs from the heresy of Calvin. Nevertheless he does not venture to advise the Pope to condemn that opinion, for it may be that there are those who are able to see in what it differs from Calvinism. As a general rule, one should not too quickly condemn an opinion which is defended by learned Catholics. In this respect St. Thomas Aquinas gave them an example of modesty; it was regrettable that at this time, especially in Spain, there was so marked a departure from his example. Accordingly, to the first two questions of the Pope, namely which propositions should be defined and which condemned, Bovio’s answer is that in respect to the main point in the dispute the Pope should neither define nor condemn anything, for all the universities and the majority of scholars had decided in favour of either the one or the other opinion. The prestige of Catholic divines would be grievously injured if a definition were to show that nearly one-half of them were in error. In addition to this the honour of the two contending Orders must be considered. The Dominicans are usually consulted in the affairs of the Inquisition and whenever there is question of points of the faith, whilst in northern countries the Jesuits are the chief opponents of heresy. What would be the impression, for instance, in England, if the Jesuits were condemned for holding the opinion which they have hitherto defended, because it is directly opposed to the chief error about human free-will? If errors are to be found everywhere, so the heretics would say, it is better to err in company with one’s own king and one’s own countrymen than with foreigners, and that at the risk of life and goods. If on the other hand physical predetermination is proclaimed as a dogma of the faith, however much that doctrine may really differ from the teaching of Calvin, in their ears it sounds very much like it and at best only scholars would discover the difference. The heretics would raise a shout of triumph over such a definition and spread it abroad that the Pope has revoked the mistaken pronouncement of Trent and has himself gone over to the enemy. It is no answer to say that where there is question of an error in a matter of faith all other considerations must be brushed aside, for this only applies when there is question of a proven error; now, whatever the consultors may say, there is here no question of an error of this kind. Men of distinction as well as entire universities disagree with the consultors on this matter. Already twenty years ago, in his controversies, Bellarmine had rejected physical predetermination and had maintained the teaching to which the name of Molina was subsequently affixed, yet it entered into nobody’s head to see pelagianism there, though it was surely unthinkable that such an error would have remained undetected for twenty years. Since the days of St. Augustine many Fathers of the Church and many scholastics have treated of efficacious grace but previous to Banes no one hit on the idea of physical predetermination. St. Augustine treats of the working of grace in a hundred different ways: how can it be explained that not as much as once does he say that efficacious grace implies a predetermination of the will?

Moreover, the question was not ripe for definition. The Church only defines what is taught by Holy Scripture, Tradition and the Fathers, and then only when theologians agree that the proposition is taught by these three authorities. Physical predetermination derives from none of these sources. Its only foundations are metaphysical considerations which even from a philosophical point of view appear very doubtful and which almost drive us to the conclusion that God is the author of sin. If God predetermined the will of Judas to the betrayal whilst he hovered between treason and loyalty to his Master, then surely God did not merely permit the traitor’s sin. A unanimous opinion of scholars that a predetermination of this kind derives from the above-named sources of the faith, is most certainly non-existent.

Bovio’s advice was that the Pope should leave the question for further discussion by the theological schools whilst laying on scholars the duty of moderation. In this way, he hoped, the heat of the dispute would abate, truth would gradually gain ground and the schools would reach a conclusion with which all might agree. Then would the hour for a definition have struck. Bovio also wished to see the secondary questions which had arisen during the discussions to be treated in the same way as the main thesis, for not one proposition of Molina had been attacked which had not, previous to him, found its defenders among theologians of repute.

Bovio’s reply to the Pope’s first two questions is exhaustive. He is more concise in his answer to the third question, that is, as to how the opinions of the two contending schools differed from the tenets of the heretics? The Dominican teaching differs from that of Calvin in that the former admit the existence of free-will whereas Calvin denies it. However, Bovio confesses himself unable to understand how free-will can be saved in the Dominican conception of it, whereas it was easy to point out in what way the opinion of the Jesuits differed from pelagianism.

The fourth point on which Paul V had sought information was in reference to the Bull to be issued on the subject. Bovio had previously presented a draft of such a Bull. He suggested the definition of such propositions only as were held by all Catholics. On the present occasion he advised the Pope to leave all mention both of Dominicans and Jesuits out of the Bull, and to make no allusion to Molina: “let us do all we can to blot out the memory of a strife which all well-disposed persons wish it had never arisen”.

Bovio’s memorial was in the hands of the Pope about the end of 1606, that is, simultaneously with the verdicts of the other consultors. The final decision was delayed for another eight months, though in the meantime there was no abatement of the dispute. Cardinals Arigoni and Marzato were detained in Rome until the affair should be settled. The Pope attached particular importance to the verdict of Cardinal Du Perron. By his command the Acts of the Council of Trent were taken from the castle of Saint Angelo to the house of the Cardinal, though illness prevented Du Perron from making much use of them. Anastasio Germonio wrote to Francis de Sales, to ask him for his view as to what should be done. The brief answer of the bishop of Geneva gave the Pope such satisfaction that he asked for a fuller statement of his views. In his memorandum Francis de Sales declared that on the whole he shared the view of the Jesuits; he added that he had made an exhaustive study of the subject and that he saw considerable difficulties in either opinion. He did not think the time had come for deciding a question on which so many able scholars were unable to agree. He felt it would be better for Dominicans and Jesuits to join forces and to labour in mutual harmony for the good of the Church instead of allowing themselves to be divided by quarrels. The learned and so eminently successful champion of the unity of the Church wrote in a like strain to the nuncio of Savoy. His counsels could only strengthen the impression which Bovio’s moderate and balanced statement had apparently made upon the Pope.

OPINION OF PARIS UNIVERSITY.

Paul V was likewise desirous of ascertaining the views of the university of Paris. To this end the French nuncio, Maffeo Barberini, the future Pope Urban VIII, was instructed to seek information on the subject, though in complete secrecy. Accordingly the nuncio called on Duval, the most famous among the theologians of Paris of that period, and, as it were, casually turned the conversation on to the controversy on grace. Duval told him that personally he felt inclined to side with the Jesuits; others also, and they were not the least distinguished, shared his view. But two doctors of the faculty, viz. the members of the Roman Commission, Le Bossu and Creil,  sided with the Dominicans and they warned their Parisian colleagues against hasty expressions of opinion seeing that the Pope was expected to give a decision. In Spain some excellent theologians favoured the Dominicans, but in France, where they had to deal with heretics who denied the existence of free-will, they were inclined to take their stand by the side of the Jesuits. Two months later Barberini wrote that, at his request, Duval had made further inquiries and that everywhere he had met with uncertainty. If the faculty were asked for a decision it was possible that, owing to the influence of the dean who was suspected of Lutheran leanings, it would pronounce in favour of the Dominicans. Of the two principal Colleges, the Sorbonne was for the Jesuits, that of Navarre for the Dominicans; a Jesuit had written from Rome that under the new pontificate things looked well for his Order.

In these circumstances Barberini gave the same advice as Francis de Sales, and according to the biographer of Urban VIII, Barberini’s report had a decisive influence upon Paul V’s subsequent action.

It would seem, seeing that he looked for information in so many quarters outside Rome, that Paul V did not rely over much on the opinion of the Roman Consultors. Their finding, as a matter of fact, was not calculated to lead to a definitive result. It so happened that in the very first of the forty-two propositions condemned by them they found fault with Molina on a point in which the Jesuit merely sums up the teaching of St. Thomas; still worse for them was it that in this they unwittingly took the same point of view as Bajus. In a memorandum on the last pronouncement of the Commission, Cardinal Pinelli remarked that he did not profess to be a theologian, hence others must judge whether or no the forty-two condemned propositions were to be found in Molina, but in his judgment the course of the disputation had brought to light the fact that the consultors were not scholars of such outstanding ability that the whole affair might be safely left to their judgment. Hence the opinion of theologians and universities should be sought, secretly and without attracting attention; as for the consultors, they might as well go home. In the meantime the reading of Molina’s work should be forbidden until it had been amended.

Against the latter proposal Aquaviva urged the oft-repeated argument that Molina’s book had the approval of the experts; that many propositions were wrongfully ascribed to him whilst some of them were equally held by other theologians; in the given circumstances a condemnation of Molina would be construed into a condemnation of the entire Society of Jesus. The result was that thereafter Pinelli never again proposed the condemnation of Molina.

At this time another name famous in the story of the controversy on grace appears beside those of Francis de Sales, Bellarmine and Du Perron. As early as the beginning of 1603, Cardinal Baronius had taken sides in the controversy in two documents which ever since had been passing from hand to hand in Rome. In them the great theologian declared himself a friend of the Jesuits but a decided opponent of Molina; no less than fifty-five propositions in the latter’s writings seemed to him to deserve condemnation. Baronius had been Clement VIII’s confessor, so it may well be that he confirmed the Pope in his opposition to Molina. However, his writings could have but little bearing on the issue of the dispute for Baronius had never specialized in scholastic theology. Even his historical data about the origin of the quarrel were quite wrong, a fact that seems almost incredible.

If the end of the strife appeared at last to be in sight, credit for it was given, in Rome, to the King of Spain who pressed for a decision and assured the Pope that he would see to its strict execution.

On the feast of St. Augustine, August 28th, 1607, the day came which was to see the end of discussions that had dragged their weary course through so many years. When the following nine Cardinals, Pinelli, Bernerio, Givry, Bianchetti, Arigoni, Bellarmine, Du Perron, Bufalo de Cancellieri and Taverna were gathered in his presence, the Pope asked for their opinion as to what should be done.

Of the nine opinions which were now given two were not likely to influence the papal decision. Taverna opined that if one of the two views was erroneous, a papal condemnation should ensue; if not, no decision should be taken. Bufalo wanted a papal decision in any case; either the one or the other opinion should be condemned or both should be declared probable. He was against a continuation of the disputations for they could only create universal confusion nor were they in keeping with the dignity of the Apostolic See.

On the other hand, four of the nine Cardinals expressed themselves in favour of further discussions. Pinelli repeated his advice that to this end scholars should be summoned from France, Spain, and Germany, and the universities also should be consulted, for though some of the members of the Roman Commission were men of ability and learning, the others did not inspire confidence. For the time being the main question might be left in abeyance; they might be content with the definition of a few points about which no doubt existed. Further discussions were also favoured by Givry, Bianchetti and Arigoni. Givry and Bianchetti leaned towards the opinion of the Dominicans, the former because in this view greater power was attributed to God, whereas the latter founded his preference on the declaration of the Council of Trent that without God we are incapable of a good act. He added that further investigation should be conducted by a new commission of Cardinals and consultors and the censors should make sure whether or no Molina really taught the forty-two condemned propositions. Cardinal Arigoni supported Bianchetti; he deprecated, however, the suggested prohibition of Molina’s book, pending its revision. He did not wish that any definite, clearly outlined propositions should be laid down by papal sentence; there would be no corresponding advantage in this and the heretics would be given a pretext for writing against them.

The memorials of Cardinals Bernerio, Bellarmine and Du Perron alone express a clear and definite judgment on the central question of the long-drawn controversy.

Bernerio is decidedly in favour of a papal definition and that in the sense of the Roman Congregation and the condemnation by it of the forty-two propositions. The propositions should be expressly described and condemned as the teaching of Molina. A special Bull should be issued on the subject of physical predetermination; to safeguard the honour of the Society of Jesus its name should not be mentioned in its pages. That is how Pius II acted when a controversy arose between Dominicans and Franciscans concerning the precious Blood of Christ. Though all the Cardinals were in favour of the Friars Preachers, the Pope refused to pronounce against the Franciscans whose services were required for preaching the crusade against the Turks.

If the Dominican Bernerio pronounced himself most decidedly in favour of the opinion held by his Order, Bellarmine and Du Perron defended the opposite view with no less energy. Physical predetermination, Bellarmine observed, was the opinion of Calvin and Luther. The Dominicans may be excused inasmuch as they do not read the works of the heretics. Banes’ language was worse than that of Molina for he found fault with St. Augustine’s view on reprobation. Molina’s work had received the approval of two universities. A few indubitable propositions, on which both parties agreed, might be defined in a Bull but the more difficult points should be left alone.

Du Perron spoke in the same strain. The innovators would gladly accept and subscribe to the doctrine of physical predetermination. Calvin had taught it, precisely in the sense here in question and in this sense it had been condemned by the Council of Trent when that assembly declared that it was possible for man to reject grace. The opinion of the Jesuits differed widely from that of Pelagius. The book of Molina should not be prohibited, but rather that of Banes. Du Perron does not desire a solution of the dispute by papal definition. The best is to let the affair drag on and die a natural death. Maybe Providence will bring the two parties together in a mutual understanding.

ULTIMATUM OF PAUL V.

The Pope was thus left without adequate data on which to base a definitive pronouncement. He could not lean on the verdict of his Roman Commission; with the exception of Bernerio, not one of the nine Cardinals attached particular significance to its report; in fact some of them openly expressed their misgivings. Nor did the memorials of the Cardinals provide him with a firmer basis. These documents advocate the most contradictory proposals: they advise the Pope to define and not to define; to prohibit Molina’s work and not to prohibit it. As regards the central point of the whole controversy, six out of the nine Cardinals, notwithstanding interminable discussions, had not yet got a clear idea of the question, and when two of their number showed a leaning towards the Dominican theory, the arguments brought forward by them made it plain that they had no real grasp of the problem. Of the remaining Cardinals, Bernerio on the one hand, Bellarmine and Du Perron on the other, stood in sharpest opposition. It was therefore impossible to decide the question by a majority of votes. Were Paul V to weigh the votes, instead of counting them, either Bellarmine or Du Perron would outweigh, singly, all the others taken together; however, as a Jesuit, Bellarmine was just as much liable to be suspected of partiality in the affair as was the Dominican Bernerio and on two votes only, however great their weight, it was utterly impossible to base a definition in a question of faith.

Without allowing the strife of parties to trouble his judgment, with wonderful calm and serenity of mind, Paul V summed up his own ideas in a final review of the memorials of the nine Cardinals : “Since the Council of Trent declared that our free-will can only take decisions tending unto salvation if God acts on it, a controversy has arisen as to whether this action is a physical or a moral one. From controversy to error it is but a short step, hence it is most desirable that the question should be clarified. However, there is no immediate need of a definition for the Dominican opinion differs widely from the teaching of Calvin, since in their view grace does not take away freedom but perfects it, and thus enables man to act in a human way, that is, freely. On the other hand, the Jesuits differ from the Pelagians; the latter attribute the first step towards salvation to ourselves whereas the former maintain the exact opposite. Hence a definition is not needed for the moment and the affair may be put off so as to give time a chance to do its work”. There was no need for a Bull which would deal with matters that were not controverted; it would only give the innovators an opportunity for a display of their sophistry; it was the province of the Inquisition to take action against people who disseminated really false theories. Many points may be left for further discussion and the universities as well as individual scholars may be consulted. Accordingly the congregations dealing with the controversy on grace are dissolved and their members bound to keep the strictest secrecy about the discussions; all they were to say was that the Pope would decide the affair at some future date.

A few days later the Pope’s decision was communicated to the Dominicans and to the Jesuits. His Holiness, so the General of the Jesuits, Aquaviva, wrote on September 3rd, 1607, to the Provincials of his Order, has informed both the theologians and the consultors that they may go home; at the appropriate time he would make known his view and his decision concerning the matter in dispute. Until then no one must presume, when the subject is discussed, to pass any strictures on those who hold a different opinion. If anyone either of the party of the Jesuits or of that of the Dominicans contravenes this command, let him be severely punished: the present ordinance is to be held inviolable.

When the Jesuit historian of the controversy on grace published his account of the matter as against that of the Dominican Serry, he headed each section of his voluminous work with characteristic illustrations. The wide head-piece shows Christ carrying His cross and saying to St. Ignatius of Loyala: “I will be favourable to you in Rome!”. As a matter of fact the Society was about to tread once more the Via Dolorosa portended by the vision of its holy founder. The Jesuits had failed to secure a definitive judgment; so had the Dominicans; but apart from this the issue had been as favourable to them as could be expected in the circumstances. Every attempt had been made to call down upon Molina’s work a sentence of condemnation by the highest authority in the Church, yet all these efforts had failed. During the discussions the entire Society of Jesus had been, as it were, arraigned; now it was acquitted. The opposition had constantly represented the Jesuit teaching as contrary to the faith; henceforth no one was to presume to bring forward charges of this kind. The Dominicans held that physical predetermination was alone true and a proven article of the faith; it was now clear to all that they were mistaken in that claim.

The protracted strain from which the Jesuits had suffered whilst the controversy lasted, sufficiently accounts for the strange ways in which joy over the outcome expressed itself in many places in Spain. Thus, at Salamanca, posters were stuck on the walls with the legend: Molina triumphs! Elsewhere there were masques and displays of fireworks; at Villagarcia, in typical Spanish fashion, they went so far as to get up a bull fight for which, however, Aquaviva insisted that the Rector of the College should be severely reprimanded in presence of all his subjects and punished with temporary suspension from his office. On the other hand the Vice-Provincial of Toledo was able to report that in his province no outward manifestations of joy had marked the favourable termination of the dispute. From a petition in which the Dominicans of Valladolid invoked the Pope’s protection, we gather that at the termination of the controversy a number of scholars openly took the part of the Jesuits and that public opinion turned against those who until then had played the role of accusers.

In view of the high tension of spirits on both sides it was to be expected that the controversy would not abate at once. On the part of the Jesuits, Acquaviva, with characteristic moderation, instructed his subjects to refrain from any reference to the burning topic. A book in which Lessius dealt with the matter and which had been completed and approved already in 1608, was only allowed to appear in 1610, at Antwerp, subsequently to the publication, in the same year, of a voluminous work in which Diego Alvares gave a defence of the Dominican view which was to remain classical for years to come.

Lest by a reopening of the controversy spirits should be still further excited the Inquisition published a decree on December 1st, 1611, which forbade the publication of further writings on the doctrine of grace unless they had received the special approbation of the Holy Office.

For all that, Lessius’ book was not without effect. It prompted Philip III to instruct his Roman envoy, in agreement with the Roman Dominicans, to press for a definite settlement of the dispute. On its part also the General Chapter of the Friars Preachers, held in 1612, petitioned the Pope in the same sense. However, Paul V persisted in his opinion that there was no need of a papal definition of the question. In a memorandum drawn up for his own personal use, the Pope briefly recapitulated the grounds for this attitude of his. He writes that he would keep the affair in mind and he records his keen displeasure at the heat which both sides displayed in debate. Aquaviva, whose opinion Paul V sought, answered that he thought it would be premature to make a pronouncement on the question; the issue of the Congregations was there to prove it.

The book of Lessius had yet further repercussions. Bellarmine and other Jesuits in Rome thought that some of its assertions went too far and that they gave ground for the opponents’ objection that in the Jesuit conception efficacious grace and sufficient grace differed only in their effect, inasmuch as the free-will corresponds with the one but not with the other, hence the difference is due solely to the free-will. For this reason, on 14th December, 1613, Aquaviva drew the attention of his subjects to the fact that a grace with which, in God’s prevision, the assent of the free-will is linked, was precisely for that reason a special favour, one more precious than any other; that such was the teaching of the Order and by it all should stand. As against Lessius’ view that predestination to salvation was consequent on the prevision of our good works the decree takes the opposite view, but this was subsequently revoked by another General, Vitelleschi. Lessius lived to see Francis de Sales come round to his opinion.

DOGMA OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

A papal decision was similarly invoked, and likewise in vain, in yet another theological problem of several centuries’ standing. At Christmas time, 1614, when according to custom the people of Spain sing hymns and religious rhymes in honour of the feast, three priests of Seville conceived a plan for honouring the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God in like manner. In the following year, 1615, they successfully taught the children and the grown-ups suitable hymns and rhymes. A protest by the Dominicans only met with an increase of enthusiasm. True, exception could at times be taken to some of these outbursts of fervour. Now already by 1613, devotion to the Immaculate Mother as well as opposition to it, had reached a certain liveliness. These divergent feelings now grew to such proportions that the hard-pressed Dominicans, as well as the archbishop, appealed to the king begging him to obtain a papal decision on the disputed point with a view to putting an end to the scandalous strife. The nuncio in Madrid, on the other hand, desired no more than a fresh confirmation and enforcement of the edicts by which Sixtus IV and Pius V, whilst avoiding a final decision, had previously endeavoured to allay the dispute. In effect a Bull in this sense was published on 6th July, 1616. It forbade once more all mutual accusations of heresy as well as the discussion of the question before the people, additional penalties being laid down for such as proved recalcitrant.

Now Philip III, on the advice of an extraordinary Junta, had already decided to send to Rome a former Abbot-General of the Benedictines with mission to obtain a definition of the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of the faith, or at least a prohibition for anyone to maintain the opposite view in public. When the Bull arrived it was decided not to open it for the time being but to await the issue of the embassy. The king had written in support of the efforts of his envoy. However, Paul V was not disposed to listen favourably to the request. Scandal, he declared, must of course be stayed, seeing that the Dominicans have gone the length of accusing of heresy those who maintained a view which was not theirs. His predecessors had refrained from issuing a dogmatic definition; neither orthodoxy nor the salvation of souls necessitated it; the Protestants desired it in order that they might have fresh grounds for an attack on the Church. When a congregation of Cardinals had expressed similar views, a decree of the Inquisition was issued by which all public attacks against this pious opinion were forbidden, but for the rest it left the situation unchanged. In Spain the decree was hailed with loud manifestations of joy, for it surely meant a big step forward.

The king, however, was not satisfied. Even before the decree reached Spain he had decided to send yet another envoy to Rome in the person of a distinguished prelate, the bishop of Osma, who was to push with greatest energy this affair of the pious opinion. Notwithstanding the representations of the nuncio and though Paul V, in an autograph letter, had deprecated the despatch of a further embassy, Philip III believed the Pope was insufficiently informed; hence, after the demise of the bishop of Osma, he appointed a third envoy in the person of the former General of the Franciscans who was now bishop of Cartagena.

All these efforts were in vain. The ceaseless pressure on the part of Spain in this and other matters ended by causing great annoyance to Paul V. The Pope went so far as to declare that he would sooner resign than allow himself to be treated in this fashion. In April, 1620, the bishop of Cartagena was ordered to return to Spain.

Of all the princes the archdukes of Austria alone supported the efforts of Philip III. Even the Spanish viceroys displayed but little keenness. Philip’s ambassador to France wrote that not much was to be expected from that country, were it only by reason of France’s dislike of Spain; besides that, their Gallican views led the French to maintain that only a General Council would be competent to decide such a matter; they would refuse to accept a definition by the Pope. The theological schools did, indeed, teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but if freedom of discussion in this matter were interfered with, it was to be feared lest opinion should swing round in the opposite direction, out of hatred for the Pope’s authority and for Spain.

Strangely enough the Spanish Dominicans, at the suggestion of the king, and whilst the pourparlers were still in progress, sent a petition to Rome, to beg the Pope that he would lay a command on them to preach the Immaculate Conception and to honour it in the liturgy, according to the universal practice of the Church.

Paul V was of a strictly ecclesiastical bent of mind. A characteristic manifestation of this disposition can be seen in his great zeal for the honour of the Saints. Not only did he raise the rank of certain existing feasts, or extend them to the universal Church, he likewise added new and illustrious names to the list of those who were to be honoured everywhere; however, he did this only after a conscientious and searching inquiry and with most scrupulous regard for existing rules. Eugene IV and Nicholas V, in their time, had taken up the preliminary work for the canonization of Francesca Romana, one of Rome’s noblest women, and whom the voice of the people had proclaimed a Saint as soon as she was dead. In 1604, Clement VIII took up the process once more. Paul V gave it close attention from the first year of his accession. His first act was to order an accurate review of the process up to date. On 11th April, 1606, Francisco Pena, dean of the Rota, reported favourably. The Romans undertook to defray the not inconsiderable expenses connected with a canonization. As soon as the Congregation of Rites had given its consent, the question was discussed and concluded, as prescribed, in three consistories held on 28th April and 6th and 21st May, 1608.

Cardinal Bellarmine supplemented his favourable vote by pointing out that, forasmuch as she had begun by practising virginity, and then lived for many years in chaste matrimony, had subsequently borne the burdens of widowhood and finally led a life of perfection in the cloister, Francesca Romana was all the more deserving of the honours of the altar as she could be set up as a pattern of virtue for every age, sex and condition. Paul V fixed on the anniversary of his own coronation (29th May, 1608), as the date of the solemn function. It was carried out in St. Peter’s, amid the jubilation of the Roman people. In the Bull of canonization the Pope extols the power of grace in a weak creature and congratulates Rome, the city of his birth, for in it more than in all the other cities of the earth, has this power been shown forth. Rome, the Bull declares, was like a queen crowned with a diadem sparkling with many jewels, not only because of a host of Martyrs adorned with the purple of their own blood, and of blessed lines of venerable pontiffs, but also by reason of its choirs of chaste virgins and a multitude of matrons adorned with every heavenly grace. During the days following the function in St. Peter’s, great processions escorting the image of the new Saint wended their way to the Convent of Tor di Specchi, to her tomb in St. Maria Nuova and to St. Maria in Ara Coeli as being the church of the Roman Senate. The Pope himself paid several visits to the tomb of Francesca and said Mass there. He repeated his visit in the following year, on 8th March, the Saint’s feast day. In 1616, the Trinitarians erected a new church in her honour in the via Felice.

If the memory of Frances of Rome lived thus in the hearts of the Romans, that of Carlo Borromeo was no less alive in those of the people of Milan. They looked on him not only as an ideal bishop, but likewise as a pattern of every virtue. On 4th May, 1604, a deputation of the clergy and people of Milan had petitioned Clement VIII for Borromeo’s canonization. The Pope referred the matter to the Congregation of Rites, from whence it went on to the Rota. Owing to the fact that the inquiries at Milan had been held without a mandate from the Holy See, Paul V ordered a fresh investigation. The thoroughness with which the Pope insisted that they should be carried out is shown by the fact that more than three hundred witnesses were examined. Petitions were presented to the Pope by all manner of persons; among others by Philip III and by the whole College of Cardinals. To the same end the seventh provincial council of Milan sent bishops Bascape of Novara and Carretto of Casale as its special delegates to Rome. However, the Pope insisted on a most rigorous inquiry lest anyone should suspect the least shadow of partiality in an affair in which there was question of honouring a Cardinal of the Roman Church. Three auditors discussed the matter in no less than eight sessions. After the presentation to the Pope of their favourable vote, on 7th December, 1609, the affair came before the Congregation of Rites on 12th December. Although that Congregation had already expressed its assent in the spring of 1610, Paul V had the report of the Rota controlled by twelve Cardinals, Bellarmine being one of them. Only when this had been done in eleven sittings, between 26th January and 26th June, 1610, was the discussion concluded in the consistories of 30th August, 14th and 20th September. On 1st November, 1610, the apostolic bishop in whom, together with Pius V, the spirit of the Catholic reform shines most brightly, was numbered among the Saints. Three churches were erected in his honour in the Eternal City, during the life-time of Paul V: the magnificent church of San Carlo ai Catinari, by the Barnabites; that of San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, by the discalced Trinitarians, and that of San Carlo al Corso, by the Lombards. On the occasion of the translation of the Saint’s heart into the last-named church, on 22nd June, 1614, twenty-five Cardinals and nearly a hundred bishops took part in the solemn function. Guido Reni honoured the new Saint with the magnificent Pieta which adorns the gallery of Bologna.

FURTHER CANONIZATIONS

Paul V carried out a number of canonizations in which he paid homage to the most diverse conditions. Besides the admirable archbishop of Valencia, Thomas of Villanova, who died in 1555, and Cardinal bishop Albert of Liege, who had been murdered in 1192 by some adherents of the emperor Henry IV, he beatified two Spaniards of whom the world had never heard until then. One of them, Isidore (died 1305), for whom Philip III cherished a special regard, was a simple husbandman; the other, Pascal Baylon, had spent his whole life as a lay-brother in the Order of the discalced Friars Minor of the strict observance. The Servites were given a new Beato in the person of Joachim Piccolomini (died 1305). For the Silvestrins the Pope approved the cultus of their founder, Silvestro Gozzolini, and for the Dominicans that of Louis Bertrand (Beltram), whose burning zeal had spread Christianity in New Granada between the years 1562 and 1569.

With what circumspection Paul V proceeded before assenting to the public cult of any servant of God is shown by his action in regard to several of the heroes of the Catholic Restoration who had long been the objects of popular veneration. In the very first year of his pontificate urgent requests reached the Pope from various quarters for the beatification of Ignatius Loyola for whom the diocesan processes had already been completed in 1595. Clement VIII had not given effect to a request for the introduction of the Apostolic process; Paul V, on the other hand, made no difficulties. The discussions terminated in 1609; December 3rd of that year witnessed the beatification of the founder of the Jesuits. Bellarmine had done yeoman’s service to bring this about. Thereafter the canonization of Loyola was repeatedly mooted. However, even when on 3rd March, 1617, the three auditors of the Rota who were in charge of the preliminary inquiry presented their report, Paul V. answered as before, that an affair of this kind demanded a thorough investigation and mature consideration.

Information about the life of Francis Xavier had been gathered in India as early as 1556. In 1611, the process was taken up once more, but the beatification of the apostle of India only ensued on 25th October, 1619. The cause of his canonization, though introduced in 1617, only concluded under Gregory XV.

In Rome none of the great reformers of the sixteenth century enjoyed, after his death, a veneration at all comparable to that of which Philip Neri was the object. In 1609, the Romans resolved to offer annually on the tomb of the apostle of their city a chalice and paten of gold, together with wax candles, as was done for the other Saints. Paul V still maintained his reserve. A document has come down to us which prays the Pope not to forbid the private veneration of Neri. All obstacles in this respect were only removed when the founder of the Oratorians was beatified on 25th May, 1615.

Even in regard to the canonization of his great predecessor, Pius V, which was especially urged by the Dominicans, Paul V proceeded with extreme caution. He granted leave for the introduction of the cause but would give no more than verbal permission for the setting up in the churches of the likeness of the holy Pontiff by the side of votive tablets.

Permission for the opening of the canonical process of Francis Borgia had been granted by the nuncio Decio Carafa and this was proceeding since 1610, in Madrid, Valencia, Barcelona, and Saragossa. The acts reached Rome in 1615, and in August of the same year the Congregation of Rites declared that the documents could be handed over to the Rota. Paul V came to no decision. Cardinal Maurice of Savoy presented a petition in behalf of his ancestor, duke Amadeus IX, who had died in 1472. Paul V, in 1613, entrusted the affairs to a committee which discussed it for a considerable time and on 15th June, 1615, ordered further inquiries to be made in Savoy. In 1610, the Grand Duke of Tuscany took steps for the canonization of Andrew Corsini who had been beatified by Eugene IV; however, during the pontificate of Paul V the matter did not get beyond the report of the Rota. The request of the Commander of the Swiss Guard for the beatification of Nicholas von der Flue the Pope met with the remark that an affair of such importance demanded time and mature deliberation.

SS. TERESA AND MAGDALEN OF PAZZI.

The process of beatification of Teresa of Jesus had been initiated, in 1G04, by Clement VIII. Paul V ordered its continuation, but even in the case of so outstanding a personality nothing was rushed, however pressed the Pope may have been even by princely clients of Teresa. It was only on 24th April, 1614, that he beatified the extraordinarily favoured reformer of Carmel. On 25th May, 1607, the death occurred at Florence of the Carmelite, Magdalen di Pazzi, whose motto had been “To suffer, not to die!”. The process of her beatification opened as early as 1610. Some time later Paul V wrote to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, reporting progress, but he came to no final judgment, just as he refused to decide anything in the question of the beatification of the Theatine, Andrew Avellino, who died in 1608, and the examination of whose cause the Congregation of Rites had begun in 1612.

In addition to the Jesuits, the beatification of Aloysius Gonzagoa was also strongly urged by the Saint’s family. Paul V gave leave to Cardinal Dietrichstein to put over Aloysius' tomb a picture of the holy youth, surrounded by votive tablets, and on the termination of the diocesan process the acts were passed on to the Congregation of Rites. In consequence of further pleadings the Pope, having previously consulted the Cardinals, by a Brief of 10th October, 1605, allowed Cepari’s life of Aloysius, with the title of Blessed to be published in print. A Brief of 31st August, 1607, instructed the Congregation of Rites to inquire into the life and miracles of Aloysius. When this was done the Congregation expressed the opinion, in 1612, that an Office and Mass in honour of Aloysius might be granted to the Jesuits. To this the Pope would not consent because he wished to avoid the semblance that his approval was given out of consideration for Cardinal Ferdinand Gonzaga who had assisted at the sitting of the Congregation. By decree of the Congregation of Rites dated 20th May, 1613, the process was submitted to the control of the Rota. The tribunal discussed the subject during several years. Meanwhile new petitions came in, praying for a formal beatification of Aloysius. Cardinal Ferdinand Gonzaga renewed his request in respect to the Mass in Aloysius’ honour. On 27th December, 1617, the Pope told him he would speed up the affair. The discussions were protracted until the following spring. Only in March, 1618, would the Pope at last grant such a Mass for the territory of the Gonzagas, and at the request of Bellarmine, also for his mortuary chapel in Rome. The further request of the Cardinal, that he would concede it to the whole Jesuit Order, Paul refused to grant. Nevertheless he allowed the Congregation of Rites to take a vote on the matter and to report to him on the result. Although this was favourable, Paul V, on 30th April, 1618, gave leave for the celebration of Masses in honour of Aloysius only for the Jesuit houses in Rome.

The spread of the Forty Hours’ Prayer, an exercise introduced in Rome by Clement VIII, was greatly furthered by a Brief of 10th May, 1606, which eased the conditions for gaining the indulgences attached to it. These indulgences Paul V also granted, on a generous scale, to people living outside the Eternal City. The Capuchins, more than anyone else, deserved well of this devotion, above all the famous popular preacher, Giacinto da Casale, whose Lenten sermons at Milan, in 1613, daily drew a crowd of twenty thousand persons.

Five years earlier another Capuchin, Fedele da San Germano had preached with extraordinary success in the church of San Lorenzo in Damaso both during Lent and during the Forty Hours’ Prayer. In 1614, Giacinto da Casale preached in the same church. Numerous conversions and reconciliations were the fruit of his discourses.

A splendid example of the renewal of piety in the Eternal City may be seen in the Oratorio della communione generale founded in 1609, by the Jesuit Pietro Gravita and furthered by Paul V. With a view to withdrawing the people from the noisy amusements of the carnival, the scene of which was the Corso, close to the Oratorio, a custom was introduced there which the Capuchins had spread elsewhere, for instance at Milan. This consisted of transforming the chancel of the church into a real Teatro Sacro by means of painted architectural motifs and pictorial representations. In the centre of this decor, and surrounded by hundreds of burning tapers, the Blessed Sacrament was exposed. The Guild of the Blessed Sacrament attached to St. Peter’s obtained from Paul V fresh indulgences for the Eucharistic Triduum which this confraternity was one of the first to hold during the carnival.

CHAPTER VII.

Paul V Fosters the Religious Orders. Galileo and the Roman Inquisition. Nomination of Cardinals.

HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES