|
|
LUDWIG VON PASTOR'S
HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
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.
Paul V Fosters the Religious Orders.
Galileo and the Roman Inquisition. Nomination of Cardinals.
|