There were, then, houses in Kyiv paler with fear, and houses with a more grim countenance. However, everyone had a simple alarm device: you took a piece of iron bar, hung it on a ladder, and in the event of some haidamak brawl, the heroic resident of the house, standing guard, would grab another iron bar and strike it with great force. A not-so-old corpse would have leaped from its grave at this alarm, thinking it was a call to doomsday, let alone the unfortunate tenant of a miserable tenement house, who was sleeping with only one eye open? This hellish noise boomed from the courtyard well, sobbing, screaming, moaning, wheezing, rushing up the stairs, crashing down them, ringing the windows, banging with an iron clang on the doors, until it finally collapsed on the terrified chest of a man who foolishly thought he would finally get one peaceful night’s sleep. Neighboring houses awoke, and finally the entire street, along which all the houses began to play their frenzied reveille on iron bars, on sheets of sheet metal, on proper dams, on God knows what. This emboldened the attacked, while the calves of the enemies were said to have trembled at the noise. So the one-eyed defender of Kudak shot into the night and darkness, when the rezunas tried to surprise him!

Ha! almost the same.

“On such a beautiful night,” on Shakespearean power, when the moon, the only living creature in this land unplundered, emerged from behind the Dnieper, we thought that the charm of nature, which spurs elephants to mystical dances and makes tigers gentler, would work on those malicious baboons whom Saint Vladimir seems to have carelessly baptized, or not baptized, those bloody subhumans whom Gaetano Mammone, who drank warm blood from a human skull, would be ashamed of.

Where!

It was already two after midnight when, after discussing the possibility of a robbery, we concluded that it was actually too late for a robbery. Due to this ignorance of the thieves’ nature, some, tired of keeping watch for many nights, lay in bed. Suddenly, amidst the silence of the night, a shuddering roar erupted, a clanging shudder that woke the alarm, and it suddenly stopped, a rifle salvo cutting through the sound like thunder.

What happened—no one knows what? In an instant, everyone was on their feet, the house humming like a beehive, and only the dull patter of feet on the stone steps could be heard; those charged with defense were rushing to their positions. A moment later, everyone was dressed and clustered behind the shelter of the walls; children were dressing quickly, nervously concealing jewels and money; women were making the sign of the holy cross, and some men were going off to investigate. The stairwell was full of anxieties, tearful whispers, quick questions and answers, or even the cries of children. The report arrives:

“An attack on a neighboring house. There were about forty bandits, sixteen defenders. They will defend themselves to the last. The chosen commander is a Pole, an acquaintance of ours.”

The attacked house, jutting back from the street line, had a bare garden in front of it, enclosed by high iron pickets. The brave house commander (may he become a general!) had long ago ordered high barricades of wood to be erected in front of the house, and now he defended the house from behind these barricades, directing fire directly onto the unobstructed street. The besieging band was thus in a difficult position, and the danger was even greater that they would either attempt to pass through our house, which was connected to the other one, or bypass the entire complex of houses and enter from the rear, which was possible. It was difficult for us, as we had thirty Tigers, hired for defense, who were already standing with rifles ready, defending the flank. The encirclement had to be investigated. Questions, like in war:

— Who’s in command there today?

— An actor from the Polish theater... An excellent actor, — someone adds soothingly.

My skin crawled at the thought of what such a general, such a distinguished actor, could possibly think, such a general who gave Don Fernando’s gilded sword to the Moorish king, “surrounded” along with his army by four thugs who had painted their faces black. The Rezunas, however, must have learned what a terrible presence Bayard was keeping watch over, because, lost in thought, they fired volleys directly at the house, which in an instant transformed into Fort Chabrol and thundered triumphantly, albeit a bit nervously, yet imaginatively, spitting fire, roaring with a roar, above which the commander’s booming voice sometimes rose, like a tenor firing a note above the choir.

Our scouts crawled out onto the balconies and watched the battle from the side, from the street, whispering messages deeper into the house.

The reports were short and reliable.

— There are thirty-eight of them... Some are lying in the street, some behind the trees, some behind the wall.

— (That’s bad!—replies the frightened soul of the house.)

— One has dug himself out... He’s lying there! He’s not moving.

— (That’s good!—replies the surprised soul of the house.)

— Second! I swear—second! Third! There’s a third!

— (But that’s extraordinary!—rejoiced the soul of the house.)

And she was immediately frightened again, for the attackers, irritated by the resistance, were beginning to become furious with dog-like fashion and began to bite the iron bars of the fence with steel teeth and shatter the window panes with bullets more and more insistently. Then the house, struck in its glassy eyes, roared with a boom like Polyphemus and hurled a contemptuously short volley at them, spraying bloody spittle into their foul mouths and laughing in an echo that echoed throughout the entire district, where not a living soul slept.

Suddenly, however, it seemed to weaken; the gurgle of gunfire could only be heard from the street, while the house began to quiet down, and the deadly harmony of its perfect volleys seemed to be torn to shreds by the rifles’ voices.

What happened?

Sweat broke out on our brows, and we began to listen with that listening with which the whole body listens...

What does this mean?!... Suddenly, a shadow steals stealthily from the defenders.

— What’s up? What’s that?

The shadow breathes heavily, then whispers:

— We’re running out of bullets... Give us bullets!

Less than a minute passed, and a thousand charges were carefully carried over the fences. A moment later, the heroic house (which, it should be noted, was to be a permanent memorial, the house at 20 Instytutowa Street)—as if delirious with joy, and as if the astonished moon, wanting to astonish even more, burst into living flame and clapped its hands so loudly that it chilled the bones.

— The devil has taken the fourth! — reported from the balcony of our house, briefly and modestly.

A suspicious movement arose among the attackers; some left their positions beyond the protection of the walls and began to confer; our picket on the balcony turned all ears but heard nothing. After fifteen minutes, however, it announced the result of the thieves’ council:

— They’re bringing a machine gun!

The news was foolish and unpleasant. Things were getting worse, and dawn was still quite a ways off; the situation was beginning to darken, the moon, hanging low, bulged with fright. The thugs in the street had grown more alert, beginning to act quickly and nervously. They had set up the dastardly tool in front of the house, on the street pavement, but so poorly concealed that the specialist lay so low that he could barely be seen (”His faithful comrades covered him with their cloaks”) and began his frantic work.

The day of reckoning had arrived; we were hurling handfuls of pea-sized bullets, which thundered against the walls, shattered the windowpanes, and clattered against the iron fence. The defenders’ rifles were rarely answered, forced to take more diligent cover, increasingly nervous, yet prepared for anything, for if the house were taken, his fate would be disastrous. The wildest Sioux Indian cannot slaughter a man with the innate skill of an Eastern Tyrolean.

A dull despair began to shoot from the captured house, as if to summon the sunrise to its aid with the crackle of rifle volleys, in the righteous belief that night emboldens these purebred bandits. No one came to help; all the surrounding houses waited their turn, each guard standing at its post. Now each moment became more terrible.

The house’s defenders, scattered in a skirmish, hidden behind a wall ledge or a pile of wood, could not unite to undertake any decisive joint action—while the enemy, emboldened by the constant fire of his machine gun, became increasingly insolent and, apparently with God’s permission, lost his mind in the ecstasy of victory. For at one moment, above the crack of the rifle, the hushed but piercing voice of one of the defenders rose, to which the voice of the commander of the home crew began to respond, merging with the other into a perfect, cohesive, impeccably dramatic dialogue, the likes of which the entire Warsaw Association of Dramatic Authors could not have created on the spur of the moment.

— Jerzy! — cried the voice, flying amidst the bullets that harmlessly pierced the heart of that noble name a hundred times over.

— I’m here!” shouted the brave commander, firing to give the shout due weight.

— Do you see him by the machine gun?

— I see! At this moment…

A hundred bullets tore to shreds the remainder of the heroic sentence, from which blood must have flowed.

— Aim well! — shouted the man from the darkness.

The glorious moon emerged from the blanket of clouds and seemed to shine brighter.

All hearts beat faster, and George, bearing a knightly name, raised his rifle, clung to it, became one with it, and remained motionless for so long, as if frozen in the frost.

— Tratatata!” the infamous machine fretted.

The other, shrouded in darkness as if in a Spanish cloak, didn’t move in the recess of the walls. His noble heart must have given him a sign, because suddenly he fired. The machine gun specialist was momentarily astonished, then covered himself with his feet and “began to dig”—as all historical writers have done, with complete style.

The moon was astonished, the Moloys were astonished, and our pickets on the balconies were speechless with joy. For this first-rate shot had not only hit the specialist but also killed the infamous spirit of the besieging army. So they fired again, this time for their own satisfaction, and, seeing the approach of dawn, they retreated stealthily, carrying away their dead or wounded with vile anger in their vile hearts.

The cabinet quoted the words from “The Wedding” to them: “You won’t tell me twice,” and fled like a young fawn. That was the least of their problems. In truly democratic societies, groats or sugar are hard to come by, but never before has there been a headache about where to find a minister. Then some new hooligans appeared, one of whom could not write at all, another could only read from print, but had a revolver. A new regime arose, the sight of which would make even the most foolish prosecutor itch. But those faces! Merciful God, what faces they were! It must be admitted, however, that the conquerors of Kiev were a broadly cheerful menagerie; Every such cacique, hung with bullets and as rich as an arsenal, always had a “fiancée” with a snub nose and a smiling countenance, a voluptuous woman with lips stretched from ear to ear à la Victor Hugo’s Gwynplain, and he drove her away at full speed in his automobile, roaring with delight. Sometimes, to amuse the girl, he shot through the window of a tenement house; sometimes he bought her an entire warehouse of perfumes for tens of thousands of rubles, or he threw a feast in the most gilded restaurant hall.

The gray black amused himself in a different way. She was on the lookout for the largest wine warehouse, which was prudently locked up, a childish obstacle for liberated people who despised Western European superstitions. The good molojcy stood in a semicircle and, amid hearty laughter, hurled hand grenades at the iron shutters of the shop. Then the last counterrevolutionary barrier burst with a roar, and noble heroes fell into trenches filled with wine and cognac. To prevent the liberated people wandering the streets, attracted by the smell of alcohol, from violently participating in the libation, machine gun fire was fired in all directions. It was a daily occurrence, charming in its simplicity, demonstrating the untainted and naively childlike soul of the Eastern Tyrolean. Bat’ko Khmelnytsky watched from the monument and rejoiced in his good spirit.

After a few days, the regular black, that is, those who held the power of life and death by virtue of their victory and maintained a rather cheerful appearance of power, merged with the irregular black, who held the power of life and death by virtue of having escaped from poorly guarded prisons. However, the most astute psychologist would be unable to distinguish one from the other at first glance, and in practice, it made absolutely no difference whether one was to be shot by a “legal” order or without one.

When these bloodless relatives occasionally met, roaming the streets in whole squads, a dense and chaotic shooting would break out. A third person passing by would always be killed, while they negotiated, explained their cousinship, and parted ways with a sense of mutual respect. Both sides, however, passionately engaged in searches, which were the most horrific nightmare of the time; While one had the “right” to refuse entry to a home to anyone without an “official order” to conduct a search, a deer had the same right to a poacher. An ordinary criminal, if he felt it necessary to maintain at least a semblance of decency, would then show a quarter of a sheet of paper or a piece of newspaper, along with a Browning pistol. By the bright light of seven thousand candles, it seemed clear to their eyes that these people were probably right. To prove their point, they took whatever they could, especially wine. It was then possible to surreptitiously call for help from the “authorities,” who would come to clear up the “misunderstanding.” However, it was more practical to allow themselves to be robbed once and not call for help again.

The unfortunate residents then consulted death and decided to defend themselves. The home defenses, initially organized quite cheerfully, gradually began to function perfectly, especially when those “regulars” began to retreat from Kiev at the news of the approach of a hungry German ally, while bandits remained in the city. Ambo meliores: those who left, and those who approached, and at their head was that infamous ataman, the same one who later became somewhat irritated with the most eminent hetman. This Minister of War, a ballet dancer in his youth, an ataman, and something else, in short, a figure from a dark Ukrainian star, had recently fled like a rabbit, now returned with an “ally,” who shortly thereafter, after kicking him, threw him down the stairs of ministerial bliss. It was difficult, in fact, to discern in this terrible, unhappy, blood-drenched country who currently wanted to slaughter, hang, and burn whom, who had the right to steal, who was the acting minister, and which minister was already sitting in the criminal vilegiatura? At that moment, however, before the new minister, the city was ruled by gangs and thugs of the first rank, armed with modern weapons and the old, national, and reliable traditions of Gonta and Żeleźniak. So the city decided to defend itself and not allow itself to be slaughtered without protest.

Each house organized a guard, constantly on duty, day and night, and concluded offensive-resistant alliances with neighboring houses, which, upon sounding the alarm, were obligated to come to the aid of the attacked house.

Because the heroism of the inhabitants was quite problematic, and it could happen that a peaceful citizen placed on guard would go mad with fear and start murdering his own children, condottieri were hired, composed of former Russian officers. They received twenty-five rubles a day, food, and housing, and were expected to defend the building along with its inhabitants, who, by a strange twist of nature, were all very pale at the time, with a pleasant greenish tinge. Each house was transformed into a fortress and had a supply of ammunition, sometimes several thousand. The rigor of war reigned, the drawbridge was raised—or rather, the gate was closed at dusk—and in all things, obedience was required to the war council, composed of distinguished generals, one of whom had even hunted in his life, while the rest traded sugar and seeds, whatever God provided. The commander of the entire home front, however, was a specialist, a genuine officer who miraculously escaped death at the hands of the Bolsheviks.

Our commandant was a brave young man, inspiring confidence; in any case, after his appointment, the fear in the entire enormous, idiotically constructed tenement house, which had a hundred entrances, dropped below freezing. Two days earlier, this fear had nearly exploded the thermometer, and since I personally have exceptional luck in everything, I was naturally present. It was like this. When the Bolsheviks destroyed my apartment, our most honorable friends took us in, sharing their warmest hearts and the finest wine with literary figures, as the beloved creator of “The Sobol and the Maiden” had pitched his tents here. We were close to God, because on the eighth floor, among our best friends, it seemed we would defeat death. Clothes there! One day, the General of the House ordered me to report for duty from 12 noon to 2 a.m. Too bad, that’s what a general is for, to give orders. I swore in a soldier’s voice: “dog blood” and went to keep watch. The company was first-rate, because, to everyone’s quiet delight, the recent vice-governor, a rather pleasant figure, was wandering around with a shotgun. The doors were boarded up, the telephone was on standby, souls buried in their heels, mines rare; We speak quietly, so as not to provoke anger, and from time to time someone laughs shamefully, insincerely, to encourage the others, who have despaired of their own. Everyone hopes that these two hours will somehow pass happily, and after an hour, everyone begins to feel more confident. Suddenly, there’s a sharp knock on the door.

Only death knocks like that, and in the theater, misfortune always knocks like that.

The entire guard is frozen; no one answers.

On the street, people begin to shout:

“Open up!”

“Who’s there?” asks someone braver.

“Search!”

“Please show me your ID!” says the brave but naive man.

The criminal behind the gate replies with some national, Russian curse, so that the walls tremble. At this, telephones whine, calling for help from neutral, Georgian units, and the entire guard, with their poor shotguns at their disposal against a dozen or so rifles, begins to retreat in order to long-prepared positions, so that the enemy, using German methods, can follow us—hesitantly. The enemy, however, smashed the door with rifle butts and fired a volley into the hallway, through which some unfortunate resident of the house was just slipping away. He fell instantly, his hip torn apart by an explosive bullet.

The entire house trembled in fear for several hours, for no one was sure what might have entered the minds of these criminal Calibans; these individuals, fearsome when faced with the defenseless, heroes in the presence of women and children, are hideous cowards at the sight of any organized force. Having stolen little, they fled upon news of the arrival of military assistance, which, however, made little effort to find the bandits, with whom he shared a deep bond of sympathy. It was better, therefore, to rely on one’s own intelligence and acknowledge the old truth that in Russia, only those who curse and strike are respected.

It was inappropriate to curse—so they began to beat people, which proved incomparably more effective than rolling the whites of their eyes to the sky and allowing themselves to be murdered according to the philosophy of that capon who, when slaughtered on Monday, said sadly that his week was starting badly.

So the next chapter will thunder with gunfire and be full of sulfur, gunpowder, wind, and howling death.

A memory from those times, one that remains etched in memory with its horror, is the memory of funerals unlike any other in the world: processions, long caravans of wagons, ordinary workhorses, pulled by slow-moving peasant oxen, would wind through the streets. This is how they buried their victims, for the enemy lay spread out in the parks and gardens. These death wagons paraded in a long line, sometimes fifty of them, and on each of the four boards was a coffin nailed together, adorned with a fir branch. Sometimes a tired little child, who could no longer follow the wagon, was placed on the coffin and rode along, poor thing, beside its father’s corpse, smiling at the fact that it was going. There were always such funerals in Kiev; whatever happened, whoever had fought with whomever, within a few days those terrible coffins would parade in an endless line. And since something was always happening there, someone was always dissatisfied, the only industry of this strange nation was nailing coffins.

A pound of bread was worth more than a human life.

Old history, nothing to speak of.

However, it was fitting to observe the slow madness of the soul of a great city, the pathological manifestations of impotence, its unheroic hysteria and helplessness. Hysteria, the killer of every impulse, had its roots in the nervousness of the terrible days of bombardment, but it grew and became a chronic disease, fueled by the madness of gossip. It is beyond comprehension what one historical neighbor cannot invent to aimlessly drive another to the madness of fear; these times gave birth to the man who is the bacillus of panic. This is an individual worse than a cannon, which can only kill but not torment. In times of which Captain Fracasse Gauthier would say that at the sight of them “the hourglass trembled in the hand of Time,” one can foresee anything and, by foreseeing, protect oneself from everything, provided one first poisons the people who sow panic with whispers, the habitual poisoners, the tragic traveling salesmen of fear. I say this rather for the benefit of our times.

Born of a mother of panic and a father of fear, he has wandered everywhere and will always wander wherever anything is about to happen. Everyone is mortally tired, and no one wants to hear of misfortune at any price. Only he is untired, and he begins to act. He multiplies in rabbit fashion and goes wild. He calls himself, by the Indian motto, “Paleface.”

Paleface is a refined villain who delights in inflicting torment; he abhors human peace and does everything to destroy it. He feeds people with fear. He sniffs out where, in some quiet corner, a person of good cheer and a cheerful heart still remains. Then Paleface appears in a misty cloud of vapors, smelling of sulfur, appears with a green soul, enters the home of a peaceful person, and walks as gloomily as that Spanish grandee from the undertaker who comes to measure the corpse. The cheerful man, who had been dreaming of them playing billiards at Lours’, opens his arms wide and paints his noble face with a smile like the sun.

— Happy birthday! — he says. — How did you survive the bombing? It was hot, because it was hot, but God had mercy. It finally ended happily, so happily that I would have drunk myself to death.

The Pale Face will look at him with that deadly, cross-eyed pity with which a balanced man looks at a professional lunatic, and slowly, emphatically, in a voice that rises from a runny stomach, will say:

— Tonight they’ll slaughter you...

The cheerful man suddenly opens his eyes wide, like a writer who has found a thousand rubles, then opens his mouth like a carp in agony, then laughs wildly for a moment, like a hero in tragedy about to die, then slowly sinks into an armchair in the graceful pose of a paralytic. Then Paleface leans over him and pours poison into his ear, as the old scoundrel the Danish king did to Hamlet’s father:

— I have the most reliable information... I can’t say where it comes from, but I can give my word of honor on this. Tonight, from three to four o’clock, they will slaughter everyone under sixty, only blond men, in houses with odd numbers.

Then the man who was cheerful, whose heart was pure, who, after many fears, had joy in his soul and a smile in his eyes, is no longer cheerful, has no pure heart, joy in his soul, and a smile in his eyes, because he no longer moves at all and lies in a faint for a long time. If he was unlucky and didn’t go mad immediately, “hard,” he will slowly begin to go mad, and that very night he will set up a fortress in his house and die thirty-six times an hour, because that’s how many times the old wardrobe creaks in his room.

And Pale Face, having sired a new madman, moves on, brooding gloomily, squinting from side to side, alert to every rustle, seeing everything, understanding everything. Sometimes he will stop, look at something sharply, and whisper only:

— Ho! ho! That’s strange!

And then he knows what no one else knows. Pale Face understands that everything is just a pretense and a show, and beyond the fog lies despair, ha! And death.

So Pale Face visits the happy mother, who is hugging her two children and is joyful. Then Pale Face begins to nod pityingly and says, in a painful, terrible, bloody whisper, just two words:

— Unhappy little ones!

The woman feels fear creeping into every hair, cold as ice.

And Pale Face:

— I don’t want to scare you, I don’t scare anyone at all. But recently, in a certain town on the Volga, such little children were loaded into cannons and shot into their parents’ homes.

— Jesus, Mary!

— There’s nothing to be afraid of; they’re not supposed to do that here until next week.

At that moment, Pale Face’s face brightens for a moment, as a mortal fear grips the entire house. The news spreads through the house at breakneck speed, repeated from “oak to oak, beech to beech,” from cook to cook, from caretaker to caretaker. On that evening, a dozen children were seen on the street, bound by their legs in pairs, being carried in a cart. As a sign of their release, the children, freed from confiscation, had their left eyes gouged out with a penknife, to reassure their parents that no one would take their children away from them.

Pale Face wanders the city again, searching for prey. He walks and listens and whispers, infecting others with fear, feeding his own fear. He hears the cold rustle of death, sees only corpses, and thinks, thinks, and continues to think mortally. Until a brilliant idea shoots from the mustiness of his fear-scorched, softened brain. He then takes this thought in trembling hands, examines it from all sides, scratches it with his claw, and begins to believe in it methodically until he finally does. Then he runs quickly, stealthily, stumbles upon a group of people who believe in God and God’s mercy, and says:

— Yesterday, an acquaintance of mine, a reliable man, a man who has never lied in his life...

— For God’s sake, speak sooner...

— ...this man bought a pound of sausage... Just be careful: sausage! It seemed like nothing... An innocent thing... Or so it would seem, so he... he told me so himself...

— So what, so what???

— Wait! You can’t get it down your throat. Well, he’s eating and reading the newspaper. There was nothing in the newspaper...

— And in the sausage?!

— There was in the sausage... Something grated under his teeth, so he thought it was a button, or glass, in short, some harmless trinket. And it was a signet ring...

— Christ!

— There was a signet ring... with a coat of arms... on a piece of a human finger.

At this point, two women fainted, one man looked expressively at the hook in the ceiling, the rest hung their heads on their chests, and all hearts died suddenly and were buried in their heels.

— What coat of arms?—whispered someone vaguely from the other world.

— Rawicz!—said Pale Face. — There were rumors that it was Grzymała, but it was Rawicz. I saw it myself.

— Rawicz!” the echo moaned, and hid under the sofa, tucking its tail beneath itself.

The windows moved softly, the wardrobe creaked with a bang, the lights dimmed, a picture tilted on the wall, and a dog howled hollowly on the stairs.

The next day, a rumor spread around the neighborhood that the smoked tongue displayed behind the shop window had a strange color and shape. Then one Pale Face told another Pale Face:

— This tongue is the tongue of an old maid who lived alone. They tore it out of her throat alive because she wouldn’t tell them where she hid her gold. She had four million in English guineas. My friend knew this perfectly well, because they were supposed to be married in a week.”

That’s what they say to each other, and Pale Face thinks and thinks and thinks... He constantly has a fever of forty-something degrees and considers anyone who isn’t afraid a personal enemy. Moreover, Pale Face has a method in his madness and maintains calendar-like precision. On Monday, everything is always undermined. On Tuesday, as if from Noah’s Ark, plague germs are released into the wealthy districts. On Wednesday, the waterworks are poisoned. On Thursday (around 5 p.m.), people are hanged by their feet from lampposts. On Friday, anyone seen in the street wearing green is shot without trial. On Saturday, anyone living on the lower floors is taken to the mines. Those living on the upper floors must have eleven healthy teeth extracted. On Sunday, peace and the planning of the week’s torment arrive.

As you can see, the Pale Faces (they are always and everywhere) lead a busy life and do not rest until people start hanging themselves in despair or greedily consume handfuls of poison to end their suffering.

The Pale Faces, yielding to the need for association, formed trade unions (in Kiev it was called “Centropanika”) and always had fresh corpses, straitjackets, all kinds of explosives, cholera and plague bacilli (only by train car), bottled curdled blood, recipes for rational insanity, and similar articles that blissfully soothed the senses.

There’s only one thing people don’t see: that every calm person who doesn’t want to go crazy but survives hard times in a somewhat serene way—if they throw every Pale Face down the stairs onto their faces, who comes to infect with fear—receives the indulgence of seven years and seven quadragens.

—What did you feel when the shot rang out?

—Were you more afraid at first, or later?

—Did you have a sense of eternity and a premonition of death?

I couldn’t answer logically, because my head was buzzing with a devilish roar. However, I noticed that those questioning me, now an old, experienced practitioner, were chattering their teeth with perfect grace and were now afraid for me too, for I no longer had any reason to be. Someone there had brought news that a fire had broken out in my apartment; I cared as much about it as a dead man cares about whether they expose him to the cold or the heat. They were now waiting for each other’s turn; our house had become exceedingly popular in the eyes of the enemy artillery, which I cannot understand, for the shack was dingy; a shell kept flying over it, like a mad, ghostly raven, whistling with rage at having missed it; another gnawed at the chimney, another buried himself carelessly in the mud of the yard, choking on earth, then coughing it out with a devilish snort, along with the fire and the iron of the skulls. As we gazed upward from the depths of the cellars through the small windows, all heads suddenly drew back, thrown back by the cold hand of fear. The house shuddered and groaned as a bullet suddenly bit into the attics and, for a moment, roared, clapped, and spat fire through all the windows. “My” bullet was more sedate and headed straight for the target, but this one was a fidgety bullet, nervous, a bit out of its mind, as if it hadn’t been doped with enough gunpowder, a bullet without character and reckless, for instead of smashing a wall, breaking a chair, and falling in peace, this half-baked bullet pierced all the thin walls, crushed everything to a pulp, and zigzagged, as if through the poor student quarters. And what’s more, it was “my” bullet. The stolen Ukrainian artillery defending the city fired with such skill that, “when they got down,” they shattered the Kiev garrets, so that the enemy artillery was demolishing the first floors. And a decent man was inside.

Finally, it was starting to get scary. One day, two days, so be it, if it couldn’t be otherwise; but thirteen days was too much. One could finally die of hunger, even though good people saved each other. I lent a real Russian prince six potatoes at that time, but we began to look at each other in the greenish light of the cellar, surreptitiously testing who was less stringy and, ultimately, somewhat edible. Women, presuming excessive tartness, were not considered. Even if there was something to eat, it could only be cooked at home, and there was usually no courage for that when, on top of that, bombs from airplanes started falling, like heavy jokes.

The conquerors were getting closer and closer to the city’s interior; rifle shots crackled closer and closer, and at every corner we saw, someone lay on the cobblestones shooting, usually hitting a fence, for the conquerors entered cautiously, taking house after house, where everything that could shoot was being taken. And on the thirteenth day, towards evening, Kiev was taken, impoverished, emaciated, already driven to the brink of despair, hungry, stripped, with flakes of plaster hanging, with red wounds in the walls, with torn telephone wires, intoxicated, and that night lit by the fires of many houses, ignited by shells. That same night, many, many people saw God’s world by the light of these fires for the last time.

The “heroes” fled, and the most innocent were murdered; Every man encountered on the street, whose movements resembled mechanized military movements, was shot without trial, lined up against the nearest wall. A terrible bloodlust flooded these terrible, hideous, savage brains. The “graduszczyj boor” was drunk on blood and waded knee-deep in it, blood-eyed, smiling paralyzedly, powerful, enraged, a rabid brute, torn from its chains, driven mad by the momentum before which everything fell helpless and powerless. The revolutionary flood of French blood was poured out in the name of something great, created with a gesture of terror amidst a frenzied song that contained the bloody, rhyming motif of judgment. And these, advancing with blood foam on their lips, murdered shamefully, grimly, for the pleasure of murder, and, even more horrifying, killed like criminals. Countless naked corpses lay numbed in the streets, gazing skyward with unclosed, terrible eyes. A brother had been shot six times in the chest simply because he wore beautiful, gleaming shoes. Because of these shoes, which were immediately removed from the corpse, because of the unriddled coat, vermin swarmed the corpse through the streets.

During the first days of Bolshevik rule, volley after volley was fired in various parts of the city. Young and old were murdered. Some hysterically furious Judith, hideous in her dark bloodlust, sent entire groups to their deaths. A docile Slav murdered his father and brother at the beck and call of a furious witch. All this took place in the beautiful garden of the former imperial palace. The condemned first dug their own graves, then stood at the edge of the pit and were knocked into it by the impact of a bullet. The large park was turned into a terrible cemetery, where corpses, scattered with light earth, threatened the great city with plague. And sometimes, from beneath the mound, a bluish, terrible hand, gripped by a final spasm, would emerge…

Next door, in the imperial palace resided the Bolshevik, rarely baptized tsars.

I was in this building a few days after the outbreak of the revolution and the tsar’s abdication, when the Kiev Revolutionary Committee was residing in the palace. There was also one Pole there, the only one who didn’t spit on the floors and removed his headgear upon entering. The rest looked and behaved cordially in Ukrainian. In the drawing rooms, rather shoddily furnished, wandered figures not from the real thing, but from a true crime novel.

Chattering female students and strangely youthful youngsters were editing a Jewish revolutionary magazine in one of the salons, while in another a muddy thug was making tea. In the imperial study, resembling a more refined hotel room, resided young ladies, giggling and occasionally typing. The emperor’s desk was dusty, a sad piece of junk lurking in the corner, and beneath the bedroom windows, on the grass, lay a broken memory of better times: the melancholic corpse of a champagne bottle. On the marble stairs, filth, mud, and filth. There was nothing but blood.

Now, human blood flowed down them in a trail, for the Ukrainian had matured politically over the past year and murdered with relish, with ever-increasing skill; He washed the thin veneer of a poor imitation of culture in blood and stood in his bovine nakedness, stinking of vodka and yucca, muddy and spat upon, yet by a hideous twist of fate resembling a human being. The victorious rezun recalled the good times, so it wasn’t enough for him to have murdered; he found true pleasure in gouging out eyes, cutting out tongues, and ripping open women’s bellies. The history of the most unfortunate people in the world—the Poles in Ukraine, Volhynia, and Podolia, and then the bloody oppression of Galicia—was a vast extension of the contemporary stories of Kiev. One grew accustomed to terrible things in those days, but the human soul can no longer bear not even the sight, but the hearing of what the savage Ukrainian scoundrel was capable of. One wanted to weep at the disgrace of humanity, and later one gnashed one’s teeth when the intelligent, great egoists of the Entente began to converse with an animal, wilder than the wildest Kaffir, yet cunning as a filthy snake, a bloody thug who, transported to a desert island, would demoralize honest-killing tigers.

At that time, I understood the most terrible of Maupassant’s novellas, in which a man scourges the severed hand of his enemy hanging on the wall, and the enemy has probably killed only one other human being. What should be done with these? May God forgive them, if he can...

Nowhere else in the world will one find such creatures. The cannibal is not to blame for being one; someday, some missionary will explain it to him, and the cannibal will be the amiable doorman of the Parisian cinema. However, nothing will change these disheveled, bloody specters even in a thousand years. It’s a pity that the noble Lloyd George didn’t see a few such copies in the original, for they sent him the “cream of the crop,” who, while not murdering themselves, are not inconceivable, yet the chairman of the Ukrainian delegation might suddenly bite the leg of the noble Minister of the United Kingdom. Anything can happen in this beloved nation.

I will never forget for the rest of my life the physiognomy of the first Ukrainian Bolsheviks who entered captured Kiev; they came to search, among other places, my ruined apartment, searching for weapons. First, there was a waft of pestilence: that combined odor of vodka, awful mahorka, filth, and yucca. Then a crowd of fifty muzhiks in gray greatcoats descended. Kalmyk noses and sly eyes, darting in all directions, suspicious, and lustful; each hung with belts of ammunition, each with a rifle and a revolver that fired with incredible ease if their furious master got the slightest idea. This terrible thug entered with clanging and clamor, with a great clatter and uproar, like a crowd of drunken men entering, and at their head, at the head of these unfortunate, very unfortunate, old, rage-ridden fools, their leader: a fourteen-year-old Jew with a revolver in each hand. A typical Jew from the money exchange, with pince-nez on his nose, curly-haired, in civilian clothes. Cunning and cunning, he led this terrible flock to the slaughter of their own brothers and their own fathers.

My good fortune was the state of my apartment, reduced to rubble by their shrapnel. It ended lyrically, for while searching for weapons, the brave young men stole something from me with incredible skill, first of all a deck of cards, the most coveted item for those idealists, a pajama, because it was wildly colorful and probably serves today as a magnificent uniform for some Bolshevik general, and most cheerfully of all—a box... of nail powder. For this bloody idiot thought it was a box containing a jewel. May it serve him until his sudden and unexpected death.

Every house maintained such a menacing watch all night, and the guard was to lie dead on the stairs, under pain of infamy, for it was possible that bands of scum, composed of deserters and prisoners, possessing weapons, uniforms as a cover for a raid, and searches as a pretext, were ready to rob houses in troubled times. I looked with tender, slightly maddened eyes at the saber, then at the rifle, then gazed at the sky for a long, long time. My ancestors in their graves trembled with great pride when they saw my knightly figure. Then the courage of a tawny lion filled me; Having exerted all my strength, I drew my saber and with emotion that would have astonished and moved Frenkel in that same scene, I said to her:

“Hey, hey, Mrs. Barska, near Slonim, Podhajce, Berdichev, Lomaz…”

But the saber didn’t tremble with emotion, because it was a dull beast, crumbled and rusty, like the old chorus girl, although it had certainly seen Berdichev, where they also trade in old iron.

The guards are gathering from all floors and basements; their armor is incomplete, for the sleepy heroes are collarless, as if even death could not be immaculately attired. Oh, Aramis, who with a Brabant lace handkerchief signaled contemptuously to death!...

Such vile times!...

The guard commander arrives and instructs in a whisper that smoking is forbidden, as it constitutes a visible target, and that in the event of an attack, one must fire continuously until the last bullet is fired. Then the guard commander goes to sleep, as befits a man of higher rank in a five-story building; and the “guard” begins its action. It began with a prudent assessment of the situation, examining every door and staircase, and instinct explained to me in an instant that the entire guard had one unwavering undertaking: to escape at the first alarm to the four winds and four directions of the building. After carefully considering this plan, I recognized it as brilliantly simple and deeply witty. I add, incidentally, that this was only the case at the beginning of the siege; later (as I will relate) and in another, more heroic house, it was truly heroic.

So I stood, like an uhlan on a ford, on the dark stairs, devising stratagems just in case; time dragged on and it was cold because it was true, and because it always is on guard. I leaned “stylishly” on the cold barrel of my rifle, hanging my saber on the window lock so that the mere sight of it would shock the enemy. My position was convenient, right next to the glass main door, so the bloody enemy general is still alive because he didn’t stumble upon me then. The outcome of the battle would also depend on which of us escaped first. Courage, after all, is born of need, and I felt it, too, flowing cautiously toward my heart, which scented blood. Besides myself, I’ve already had two corpses in my life: two Podolia hares, which must have taken pleasure in being killed by me and allowed themselves to be murdered; and as for one, I suspect it was an old, scoundrel hare, like the one in Dygasiński, who died laughing.

An hour passes, and somehow nothing happens; sometimes a horse, a picket, would plod along the cobblestones, sometimes a scattering of bullets would thud against the walls of houses in the distance. Suddenly, at one corner of the corridor, a restless flash of light flickered, elongated shadows flitted across the walls, and suspicious murmurs were audible. I shuddered, and my rifle trembled; I commended myself to God, forgave my publishers, and with Beghera’s gesture, I began to creep towards the suspicious direction, where the murmurs were growing louder, as if a conference were taking place. It was likely that, taking advantage of the negligence of the rest of the guard, whom I hadn’t seen for some time, someone had come from the direction of the empty gardens and entered, quietly breaking a window, and was now planning the details of the attack.

“Who’s on the stairs?” I asked quietly, my voice deliberately trembling.

This someone was so impudent that he wouldn’t answer my friendly question.

“Who’s there? Answer me, or I’ll shoot!” I say again. Naturally, if I had fired, I would have dropped my rifle and fled rationally, but the enemy couldn’t have known that. Suddenly, a figure emerges from the bend of the stairs and says quietly:

“Don’t shout, sir, a hundred rubles to be struck!”

My rifle choked on its own bullet and froze.

The guards have settled into a corner in their entire heroic formation, joined by the building’s caretaker and played by all the club’s rules. The company is a bit mixed, which doesn’t affect the game, as Brownings lie next to the cards like sleeping dogs. The guard commander, who arrived for an “inspection,” finding everything in proper order, has been made an honorary member of the club and plays with great charm. If the enemy had appeared at that moment, nothing terrible could have happened, for the enemy always carries his cards in his bootlegs and plays very high, throwing down whole sheets of “hearts.” The agreement would have taken place at that moment. As a result, the guard, the great master, outplayed the entire guard, with the commander at its head. I believe he also won two rifles and three sabers.

These idylls were possible then, for they were only just reaching the distant suburbs, and like a fierce bone, the enemy choked the throats of the distant streets. In the morning, the besieging force of a hundred cannons would once again thunder, shattering the gilded head of the unfortunate city. The cannonade rose to a crescendo, reaching its peak of frenzy at lunchtime, and tapering off towards evening; the great, howling cannon dogs were accompanied by small machine gun dogs, or misbreed mongrels, armored cars, biting and furious.

Until our turn came.

The heroic defenders, instead of making a getaway from the city and dealing with the besieging army in the field, hid more and more diligently behind the walls, pressed from all sides. One day, they pulled out four raucous cannons and positioned them in the square behind our house. These cannons quickly went into a sharp frenzy, swaying, and howled toward the river. The house shook to its foundations, the windows groaned with a terrified sound, and sudden despair drove everyone in a frantic voice to the basements, where it was also difficult to endure; the thunder was splitting our heads, and everyone was gripped by unbearable fear at the thought that we would soon become targets for enemy artillery. Fortunately, darkness fell, and both sides stopped firing. The churning depths of terror began to smooth out in the night’s silence, and from the depths of the cellars, as if from a grave, people began to emerge, truly resembling the dead, partly pale with a gentle green hue, partly yellow, in various coffin-like colors, to breathe better air for a few hours and lie on mattresses in the hallways. Staying indoors was impossible, because the day before, a solitary projectile, like a solitary boar, had torn its steely snout through the wall of our house, where, with an unheard-of glass shriek, every single window in the house flew out in terror. It is for this projectile that I feel a warm sentiment today, despite the broken windows. It was a bullet with a noble heart, a friendly bullet, seemingly only a scoundrel and rudely persistent—for he, having harmed no one, warned everyone, announcing with a bang that our home, until then safe, was no longer safe, that some toothless, black-palated cannonball was pointing its head in our direction. If it weren’t for him, I would have listened from the blue box for a thousand years, ad nauseam, to the City Council’s deliberations on the theatrical case, and the noble, hospitable columnist for one of the Warsaw newspapers would have had one less worry that so many Galicians, for God knows what reason, had come to the capital.

After this noble warning, we slept, as a nomadic people, on the floor, in the hallways, and in the morning, at the call of the first shot, having snatched our wardrobes, we fled to the dark underground. But when, towards evening, four ridiculously loud cannons were placed next to our house, the next day our house was blacklisted first, and without any prejudice, but worse still, it wasn’t sentenced to execution at the usual time, a little after ten! That day (my ink faded at that moment!) the first grenade was mine, personally mine, destined for me, much earlier than before.

I was having a ridiculously pleasant dream when something slammed me against the wall, something howled above me, something screamed inhumanly and roared with thunder, then something began to rumble, and something began to crash with furious force; I suddenly saw first red, swirling circles, and within them, in a dense cloud of white dust, for this reason statue-like and motionless, was my wife. The grenade struck the next room, shattered the wall, and vomited a foul stream of bricks into the room; the impact of this mad steel beast shattered the wall that had protected us. Now the beast lay, torn in ten pieces, amidst the rubble, among the broken glass, torn books, and paintings; some paralysis twisted the furniture and draped the curtains strangely. But through the broken wall, a view opened onto the world, onto the snowy March sky, as if through the loggia of a Renaissance palace, from which, however, with wardrobe in hand, one had to flee at a run, for the Bolshevik shells could have sheepish tendencies, and where one landed, a whole herd of them would follow.

So life in Kiev was so-so, not at all pleasant, getting bogged down in the softened asphalt in the summer, breaking a leg from time to time in the winter on the terrible streets of Kiev, which have the stupid property of always leading uphill.

Since everything ends, it ended in Kiev too.

This is an ancient story and hardly worthy of further mention. Tragic events began from small and inconspicuous beginnings, when suddenly the beautiful city began to fade from the overflowing gray greatcoats of heroic deserters selling cigarettes. Sometimes this small and charming street trade would become serious and seduce buyers with the brilliant gleam of a silver candelabra, or the softness of a woman’s fur, whose rightful owner, in the airy garb of Lady Godiva of Coventry, was sent home from an empty alley. Many honest people, moreover, walked around naked at that time, which finally ceased to be too much of a sensation.

Kyiv only came to life somewhat with the establishment of the Ukrainian Republic and the appointment as ministers of several university students who, having interrupted their studies, had to relearn, for decency demanded that a Ukrainian minister learn the Ukrainian language, which had not been fashionable until then. A little later, a minor misunderstanding arose among these distinguished statesmen. The prosecutor called in vain for one of the ministers in a painful voice to have the absent-minded man hand over five million in hideously printed Ukrainian money. However, the minister made no reply, reasoning correctly that a man with five million wouldn’t talk to just anyone. Such matters no longer interested anyone, for something began to circulate in the air, murmurs were heard from underground, the sky darkened somewhat, and the nights began to drag on dully. Rumors began to circulate through the snow-covered, uncleaned streets, swelling into terrible embankments, whispering, listening, vigilant, frightened, fleet-footed, and irritating. No one knew anything, and everyone knew everything; the cook, returning from the market, bringing a bloody scrap of meat, also brought bloody news; the caretaker of the house, always “in the know”, made a mysterious face and with a pitying look threatened the frightened tenant with a fanciful death, in installments.

The horizon had indeed darkened; perched on lofty hills, Kiev gazed with a thousand eyes from its windows at the vast steppe that lay across the river, from where something was expected to come. For a long time, however, nothing arrived, and this was the most disturbing, for the population, fed on gossip, had weakened and, lacking anything else to do, spun new rumors, making assumptions about the future.

And the future was more terrible than anything else, for no one, addicted to even the darkest thoughts, could have predicted a two-week bombardment of the city. It began one evening around seven o’clock, when the streets were teeming with people. The city had long since become accustomed to the buzz of rifle bullets, which made no more impression on an experienced citizen than the buzzing of flies, or, if the dose of gunfire exceeded the daily norm, than the rocket fire at a Sunday festival. Shooting usually took place at night, and this time of day was of concern only to the late passerby, leaving the rest of the peaceful citizens unmoved. Now, however, everyone, without exception, was taken aback by the sudden cannon salvo, as anyone familiar with the foolish habits of shrapnel will understand. It is precisely these maddened shrapnels that began to whistle over the city, and no one knew who was shooting or whom. All that was known was that shrapnel, fed on gunpowder, was an irrational beast that would never know its intended target, and that the honest conviction that one was not the minister they were trying to kill would be of no use. And so, the great, bustling city, fond of wandering the streets, was suddenly gripped by fear, the worst kind, because it was helpless and desperate. Fear, screaming for help at the top of its voices, rushing through the streets, clinging to the wall, a pale fear, staring with frantic eyes at the black sky beneath which something incomprehensible was happening.

It was certain that someone had gone completely mad and, in a fit of sudden fury, was firing cannons. So the street itself erupted in frenzy; pale people began to rush into all the alleys, heading towards apartments in the fallible belief that whoever reached their apartment was safe. Crossing the street, however, was not easy, because once you reached your alley, a machine gun would suddenly bare its steel teeth from its throat, as a death-safety measure in case the shrapnel failed. They hadn’t had such a good day in a long time, delighted to be returning to prominence after those gloomy days when a cannon and harness could be bought from a free Russian hero on the front for a hundred rubles. Shrapnel was included free of charge, so at that moment the shrapnel went wild with devilish joy, flying like a flock of screaming crows towards a beautiful city, not some marshy trench. They also presented themselves to the terrified city of nearly a million from their most beautiful side, developing above all their musical talents, which the resonance of the enormous boxes of the tenement houses perfectly highlighted.

So when the cannon roared out such “urban” shrapnel from its throat, he whistled first with joy, having escaped, then cackled with a hellish laugh that chilled his bones, seeing the magnificent target in its flight, as if clapping his hands next, already insane, and bursting forth with a roar, a bang, a shriek, a deep groan, accompanied by all the sounds that death utters. Behind him ran the tenth, the twentieth, the hundredth, each one more as if more furious, striking wherever he could: smashing his mad head against the walls of tenement houses, tearing over the rooftops, wandering through the streets in a frenzy. This diabolical song of the raging fire was accompanied by a great, broken human scream, occasionally a short moan, the resonant yet piercing crash of falling windows, the brief, monstrously shrill clatter of iron shop blinds, the roar of automobiles racing past in panic. The panting crowd finally dispersed and sank into the depths of the houses, which stood dark, as if a lit window could bring disaster.

As after a sudden storm that has struck a bolt of lightning and passed, the rain still pours its last drops, so during that first night, which marked its beginning with grenades and shrapnel, only rifle shots were fired; occasionally one could hear in the distance the sudden, hideous hiccup of machine guns, and again for long hours only the clatter of ordinary bullets, which was dull and soporific, and did not disturb the deep reflection on what had actually happened and what would come of it? After a meeting of all the tenants of each building, where some unfortunate “proto-porshchik” was raised by acclamation to the rank of marshal, viewed with reverent admiration, everyone came to understand the very simple strategic situation: a section of the Ukrainian forces, dissatisfied, was firing cannons at the satisfied troops, and was determined to hit the entire cabinet of ministers residing in the filthy Savoy Hotel with a large cannon. Such a beautiful idea, however, was quite difficult to carry out, because the grenades, sent from outside the city, could not reach any ministers, and therefore, out of sheer professional rage, they murdered honest people.

No one knew where the city was being shot from, as the shots were fired from several directions, and the certainty that they were aiming “from beyond the Dnieper” was a consolation and a piece of news of little value to such distinguished strategists as ourselves. It was certain that the city stood on the hills, like a stone idol, which could not be saved by a saint with oil in his noble head. If it were at the front, one would have fled, following good old custom; this was more difficult. However, sensible people were consoled by the sound of reasoning, that having frightened the city, they would give up on this foolish shooting. For in a fire-filled, widely scattered city, it is difficult to find with the black eye of cannons the one one is seeking, and the inhabitants owed to God a poor spirit. However, he who possesses a cannon has never been a philosopher; one could also observe that even the modicum of common sense that every man possesses for domestic use vanishes and becomes deafening in the roar of cannons. This conviction was reinforced with extraordinary clarity the next morning, when around ten o’clock entire batteries began to rampage outside the city, firing with a certain methodical madness. Yesterday, it had been merely a “dramatic overture” full of musical effects; today, the tragic leitmotif was being developed consistently and with a certain precision. It was noticeable that certain points in the city were enjoying unprecedented occupation and attention from the enemy artillery, primarily all government buildings, railway stations, and all the supposed strongholds of the then Ukrainian government. However, since they wanted to aim accurately, test shells were sent at tall, imposing houses, especially those whose excessive height could rightly offend the besiegers’ sense of equality. One such house (because great men are lucky, so Weyssenhoff lived in it) received about twenty violent warnings, and the shells tore out its brick body in pieces. One of the first to burst into the quiet apartment of the creator of “The Sable and the Maiden,” smashing his head against the wall, whistled with mad joy, recognizing his intended victim, and burst with a boom and a groan of excessive grief at not finding her at home. It was difficult for the most eminent bard of hunting to allow himself to be hunted, even though he was close to death behind the wall.

Kyiv is a peaceful city, and it was clear he could endure much; finally, it was too much for him. The Central Ukrainian Rada, after long hesitation, seethed with righteous anger and brilliantly devised that if they were shooting at her with the rather clear intention of depriving her of her pleasant life, it was only right that she should start shooting back. It’s impossible to deny the heroic nature of this undertaking, with the caveat that the besiegers were firing as if into a blanket, while Kiev decided to fire into the void, at an invisible enemy who had the four corners of the compass at their disposal and could freely circle the city. This defensive decision only began the real misfortunes; for the city’s defenders hid their batteries behind houses and fired over the rooftops across the Dnieper, while the besiegers began searching for the city’s gun emplacements, striking wherever they could, without regard for anything. The entire city, for its length and breadth, became their target, for the entire city began to spit fire beyond its borders. Unlucky was the house behind whose walls several cannons had been placed; the walls shook as if in a fever, the windows rattled constantly, plaster flew from the walls, and a terrible roar filled everything. After an hour of such firing, the besieging battery finally spotted a hiding place and began pounding it with a fury of fire. Then the “city” cannons would take to their heels and move their firing racket to the neighboring streets. Unfortunately, the house, a motionless entity, remained in the same place, groaning and trembling now, battered by dozens of shells, raging within with despair, filled with screams and moans, the loud, impossible cries of women, and the constant wailing of unhappy children. The distraught crowds of people rushed to the damp, cramped cellars and spent entire days and nights there, shivering from the cold, intoxicated by the must, famished, and utterly exhausted. People spoke nervously and in whispers, only occasionally someone shouted loudly when a shell struck the house, while the crumbling rubble gave the impression that this last refuge, the cellar vault, would soon collapse on the unfortunate heads of the people.

Sometimes a man, very brave or already very hungry, lurking by the wall, would crawl out into the empty and terrifying streets; sometimes machine-gun bullets drove him from there, sometimes bringing news that grew to monstrous proportions in the cellar catacombs, foretelling even worse things than those that had already seemed the worst. Sometimes a deputy from another part of the city, previously cut off from his apartment, would arrive and now return heroically; he would bring news of piles of corpses littering the streets, or of large buildings burning down. While many of these corpses remain safe and sound to this day, and those charred buildings are becoming increasingly valuable, there were no unbelievers in those days. If someone had said they’d been shot through the heart three times, they would have believed them too; tired eyes saw only corpses and fires. Everyone waited for their time.

Night brought a measure of solace. It must be admitted that these besiegers murdered the city only during the day. However, with the coming of darkness, they themselves joyfully celebrated the day’s work, while the city was given the opportunity to benefit from the wise counsel of night, to consider its fate and surrender. The desperate city would have done so without hesitation, but its defenders decided not to give up, so that at dawn, always with railway precision, the bombardment began around ten o’clock. Life began to become systematic. Since there was no prospect of a quick resolution, the ingenious man, who wanted to live a few more years, began to organize this life under the cannons bureaucratically: at one hour he went to sleep, at one hour he ate, and at one hour, marked by the first “morning” shot, he fled to the basement.

A basement life began, based on entirely new social foundations, full of romantic charm in its impeccable simplicity; The entire house entered into intimate relations with one another, regardless of the social standing of the man transformed into a mushroom. The basement became a living room, where, in the golden light of sizzling tallow, discourses were conducted in various languages ​​on topics as distant as literature or as close as, say, obtaining a piece of moldy sausage. Information useful in those times also spread there in the form of light and refined information, such as that surgery performed on a person hit in the stomach by a piece of shrapnel is much more difficult if the individual has previously gorged himself. Useful information in the field of strategy spread most rapidly. Everyone was a consummate expert back then and lied profusely. Despite this, after a week of siege, I could tell by ear whether they were shooting at us or “from us,” what they were shooting with, and what caliber (oh!); After a while, the basement was filled with artillery generals and veterans graying in battle. Grumpy men, incapable of casual conversation, paced nervously from corner to corner, counting shots, crossing themselves after every tenth.

Especially pleasant were the evenings when the ladies, like angels who came to visit the prisoners rotting in the dungeons, brewed tea and spoke sweetly about how, if one must die, it was best to die together. While none of us actually died together (only one, having become engaged in the darkness of the catacomb, married), it was easy to lose one’s mind when, around midnight, the living room transformed into a shared cubiculum, on mattresses or chairs, and when, tormented man, fate placed you head to head next to a woman as shapely as a Bolshevik cannon... And bombardment has its charms.

May the good Polish Lord forbid that I should describe all that my astonished eyes beheld in those times when it seemed that “gods and men were going mad.” Only a professional, routine madman could comprehend all this past and encompass it all into a maddening whole. The man who habitually connects cause and effect was crushed and thrown out of the path of righteous thinking, grew pale, weakened, then with the contemptuous grimace of a man who can no longer be surprised by anything in the world, with the deathly calm of a philosopher who has known a thousand and forty-three kinds of death, he gazed at the sky, which could also go mad at any moment and organize an exploding moon, shooting stars, or building an armored automobile out of the Big Dipper. Many honest people have already turned gray reading about what happened to our unfortunate neighbors in those days when, in 1918, in old, gilded Kiev, I held long, cheerful conversations with death on the topic: how to die most comfortably and painlessly?

Therefore, we should not frighten peaceful people once again, and we should not spoil healthy nerves.

This letter is rather a private account for friends who have a kindly mania for being amazed, upon meeting me, that I am still alive, that I am not missing even a single arm or leg, or some minor sign of my turbulent past, even a few knocked-out teeth, or something as trivial as one eye. It is also good to think sometimes about what has been and to look at what has been found after returning, which is precisely what I intend to do, having defied death and having come to love life even more dearly, even if it is as breathless as the one who wanders around Warsaw in Camaldolese clogs and, for lack of better food, eats his own liver.

On this occasion, one should maintain a Greek serenity of mind and contemplate the love affair with Warsaw with autumnal, gentle, quiet calm, just in case, without prejudice, trying to fully grasp the capricious sentiments of Warsaw, who knows she is beautiful, fatally in love with herself, and therefore possesses much of the charm of a beautiful woman whose greatest charm is that from time to time she doesn’t know what she wants. But such gentle, fleeting follies are the adornment of love. Here, Warsaw formed a beautiful grimace on her beautiful face, looking from beneath narrowed eyelids at the crowd of “returnees.” In the same way, a beautiful woman looks at lovers returning after years who have lost their style. In vain does one explain that for several years he groaned and yearned, gazed at the sky and, through the clod of stars, ran to the Vistula in his mind, that he worked his ass off just to return, that he had himself vaccinated against typhus, smallpox, and cholera out of a great and mad love, that, traveling for two weeks in a cattle car, he trembled with impatience, and when he saw the Vistula in the distance, covered in silver, he wiped a tear with his heavy and warm sleeve... Well, yes... It doesn’t matter... Warsaw is always the dearest, to which... Once again, it doesn’t matter…

Therefore, many of those who returned first looked very diligently, with a strangely astonished look, into the blue eyes of this most beautiful city; then he began to think deeply and sadly hung his head on his chest; Finally, two such romantics hanged themselves according to all the rules of the art. One, in good old fashion, shot himself, and one, poor soul, so utterly helpless that he couldn’t afford any patented device to soothe his fevered head or calm his heart, ruffled by great love, threw himself headfirst onto the hospitable Warsaw pavement, in a completely uninventive manner. One should write about these desperadoes what is written in police chronicles, citing as a meticulous and insignificant reason for suicide: “unhappy love.”

The rest of the indecent “returnees” are viewed by the capital’s residents with benign suspicion and that paralytically sweet smile, chemically composed of a dose of pity, sympathy, arsenic, sulfuric acid, and similar heartfelt ingredients. There’s an epidemic suspicion that these haggard Don Quixotes, whose heels the war has driven them onward like a dog, ever further, sometimes even to the Chinese border, are all secret millionaires. I always have the impression, whenever someone looks at me warmly and with emotion in their kind eyes, that this worthy man is thinking and diligently pondering in his hospitable heart that I have a million hidden in the sole of my left shoe and diamonds in the sole of my right, and out of my innate hypocrisy, to hide my treasures, I write poetry. It’s very amusing and terribly funny, and one gradually gets used to it. However, when one considers this matter comprehensively, one cannot but agree with the quiet and well-bred people who toiled to create seventy-seven cabarets for the capital, when suddenly a crowd of poor relatives arrives and settles down with a pile of belongings. If only he were a decent guest, one who would come and go, after all, Polish hospitality knows its traditions, but these are indecent guests, because such a person came, sat down, and will only leave for Powązki.

The war, in fact, unleashed passions and infuriated people.

It is quite difficult, then, to comprehend the joy of this part of Warsaw, which, with its jaws clenched, decided to work tirelessly, creating schools and building on the ruins, the joy of seeing so many hands returning to work. One always finds one, so these too will quickly find one another, they will find some kind of kinship of hearts and souls, they will swear by the name of the Polish Lord and begin teaching children, sewing shoes honestly, writing poetry honestly, and sowing grain. Somehow, in great, shared, heartfelt work, the good people will quickly come to the conviction that there is one Fatherland, one work for it, and nothing more. Because that’s always how we are from the beginning. A few sulks, a few comedies, grimaces, nasal speech, left-sided smiles, all very politely and almost elegantly. Then it all wears off. A hollow joy grips me as I think of when we will finally meet after many, many years, and when, after the solemn service in the cathedral, during which God Himself, moved by the warmth of His tears, wipes away the applause, after the cheers and heartfelt tenderness, the Polish people, weakened by emotion, will begin to look at each other. Then, the good, wise God will smile again at the sight of Polish grimaces, when a sincere Pole from unfortunate Lviv meets a Varsovian, and a Poznańese enters the happy company. For it has always been so, that a Galician is, in the deep, heartfelt understanding of a Varsovian, a second-class Pole. And what a Galician, singing gracefully in his Polish, always says about a “Warsaw aristocrat,” I cannot repeat too frankly, lest it cause neighborhood gossip. They will circulate in the air until Poles finally come to their senses, for nothing is impossible for the almighty God. And then there will be no limit to the outpouring of feelings, as old, untamed, disheveled, and empty Polish children will kiss each other with great noise, wiping tears from their mustaches, then exchange themselves for hats, and then for hearts. It’s such an old, unbearable Polish comedy that it’s no longer worth talking about. And I mention it only to explain to all those who think they were looked at cross-eyed and with a pitying smile upon their return that only barbarian nations have such unpolished customs that when one barbarian suddenly meets another after several years of not seeing each other, they then, without regard for good manners, throw themselves into each other’s arms, first weep with wild, uncouth joy, then throw themselves into each other’s arms again (how wild!), then feed each other, help each other find a cheap apartment, help each other find a job, and begin to live in ridiculous, monotonous, unaffected brotherly harmony. But we are not barbarians, and we have learned the secret of perfect people, which states that all manifestations of passionate feelings then acquire the value of a social factor if they are contained within the elegant bounds of reserve. First reserve, then heart. First you have to act out a beautiful greeting scene, and then you can drink yourself to death with joy.

Having properly grasped this detail of national psychology, one can ignore the cross-eyed glances and the coldness of the greetings and set in advance the date of the national festival, at which the fatted calf will be slaughtered. In the meantime, one must endure a little, spending the night on the pavement, while a worthy compatriot, wanting to conceal his worthy heart, mad with joy, even more tightly in a pile of pretenses, so that no one might really suspect him of emotion, will raise the rent for a very cramped, yet very damp, apartment to such an extent that you, naive prodigal son, might truly suspect him, in his blindness, of heartlessness. And this is only a pretense, a clever, delightful pretense, because one day they will open their hearts wide for you, free of charge, and press them to their breasts. Personally, I adore Warsaw so much that I can’t believe that in such a wonderful city anyone could remain, let’s put it lightly, a crustacean for any length of time.

Warsaw, however, needs to be touched. Oh, yes! In the face of a capricious woman, one must either be demonic and apply Nietzschean methods to her, which in the figurative language of peasants is clearly explained by the amorous saying: “He loves me because he ruptured my liver and broke a rib,”—or one should turn the whites of one’s eyes in a Negro manner, turn my face into an entire pastry shop, speak only in verse, shed a few perfumed tears, and sigh deeply. That’s why Warsaw loves theater so much, and that’s why it’s so enamored with actors, because they know how to make caramel from the heart; black characters with a bass voice, who always carry a dagger or poison around the stage, and sometimes pluck a handful of golden, false hair from the head of an unfortunate naive woman, have less success. And Warsaw (the one that needs to be touched) is always wonderfully naive, even though it’s a thousand years old. Warsaw, in its maidenly fashion, is immensely fond of all love proposals and proof that someone has longed for her mortally. Therefore, she needs a love story, spoken quietly, in a soft voice, a story about a heart that died for her out of love, and if it didn’t die, it was only to see her again.

Oh, Warsaw! the one that needs to be touched!

If these, the most beautiful of the beautiful, began to tell poor people about what misery, despair, hunger, fear, or death have written on their faces and hearts, you would turn gray, oh, radiant. If they began to tell you how your specter, spun entirely from Vistula mists, framed by Vistula silver, appeared at night to those who had died a hundred times from anxiety and mortal shivers of heart, your wonderful blue eyes would be filled with a great, warm love of tears.

You would embrace this poor thing that has come to you by a thousand paths, you would kiss their eyes that peered at the horizon through the blood of your despairing gaze, and your Polish, heartfelt, purest tears in the world would mingle!...

Oh, I hate it when, while writing, I stop seeing the blackness of the letters, because those foolish eyes are always at the wrong time... What were we talking about then? — About how Warsaw needs tenderness. There is a Warsaw in Warsaw that knows all this, but this one is so busy, serious, and severe that it is impossible to bother it with complaints. Let her work in God’s name; so only this Warsaw, which gazes into the Vistula, in love with itself, this beautiful one, which swoons while reading a rhyming poem, should be penetrated. In the language of comedy, this is called “seduction of the naive,” a cautious and poetically beautiful one. In such conversations, bitter words should be avoided, or those that sow the scent of blood, or those that recall graveside singing. The case is with the tender divorcee who sang pastorals and had a husband, an unfaithful, beautiful king.

Avoiding the blunt words that tear paper with their claws and sometimes howl like someone suddenly struck by great pain, one should recount what happened, telling it briefly and in a tone that, due to the frenzied experience, is slightly confused and unsure whether one is crying or laughing. While telling the story, one should occasionally, just as the image on the screen appears during the reading, remove one’s shoe and show the astonished listener that there is no million in the left shoe, and no diamonds inside the right shoe, only a piece of old cardboard, which, according to the experience of home industry, is excellent at simulating the solidity of leather. Then ten thousand witnesses must be summoned, who will testify that these, chilled by the coldness of the reception, returned to Warsaw to claim their rightful property, without which they cannot live, because they had their own hearts, set with trust in the bet of return, and that wherever their unfortunate Polish fate took them, they worked tirelessly. Only ten thousand witnesses will stand, because another ten thousand died in exile, likely carrying a million to the grave in their left shoe and diamonds in their right. This is plausible, despite the fact that many were buried without shoes. These were hypocritical, even towards the grave.

There is no statistician who, living one hundred and seven years, could calculate the amount of Polish labor in exile, to encapsulate in one momentous and sublime hymn of account the countless efforts of one rushing stream of a mighty Polish river. Someday, all this will become clear, and astonished people will learn that somewhere in Harbin, where the earth supposedly ends, the Polish spirit suddenly felt its immeasurable power and desired to teach and strengthen, and to bind the scattered multitudes into one. So the dearest of madmen gathered for a meeting, which, held a thousand miles from Warsaw, was not long, but compact and fruitful, and they decided to publish a Polish magazine there, where, as I said, the earth ends. And they published a magazine, the strangest in the world, a perfect, intelligent magazine, containing everything that the Polish, troubled heart needed—and unprinted. Someone wrote an article or a poem with his heart, while another drew letters, one after another, like letters of print; someone else drew pictures; another laboriously did something else, and this heartfelt, priceless creation, in hundreds of copies, ran along the roads, calling and shining. I am a ridiculous man moved by this little magazine, for I know nothing of any other work, a hundred times greater. Someone else will come and tell; thousands will testify, each about themselves or others, and surely then Warsaw will be moved, ready to greet these overworked people with excessive enthusiasm—”Jesus, Mary!”—almost as they did Messalówna... That would be too much! Absolutely too much! It would suffice to extend a hand to them and shake it firmly.

Apparently, however, Warsaw, as I have noted, reserves itself, and rightly so, time for reflection; not everyone has returned yet, and those who have, despite everything, are met with truly touching evidence of an undying memory, a memory with a whole heart. One of the eminent writers was greeted amidst general silence by a tailor strangely attached to him, but the rapture with which he fell into his arms testifies that a hundred thousand compatriots chose the innocent and simple heart of the tailor to cry out.

After realizing that beneath the armored plate of his heart burns a spark that will ignite into a flame of love, he finally agrees to tell the story, with a bright and radiant smile on his somewhat pale face, as cheerfully as possible, so as not to spoil the happy moment of their meeting—about those tragic moments that, having receded, give the appearance of a nightmare, which, comically twisted in shape, writhes with rage at having escaped its victim. And not only did it escape, but he writes.

I. A clear, humble, steadfast, and living faith is an invaluable treasure for a person; yet is it an easy thing to acquire such faith—if one did not possess it from youth—or to maintain a faith once acquired, or to regain it once lost? It is no easy task; otherwise, faith would not hold such value, nor would it carry such merit in the eyes of God. For what, indeed, is faith for a Catholic Christian? It is a supernatural virtue, infused by God, through which a person—relying on the authority of God Himself—accepts as true everything that God has revealed and that the Catholic Church proposes for belief. Clearly, this is a plant of heavenly origin; God places its seed in the soul at Holy Baptism, and subsequently, aided by the life-giving light of grace, the teachings of the Church, and the soul’s own cooperation, it grows into a beautiful and fruitful stalk (1). The soul’s cooperation—that is, coming to know the truths of faith, submitting to them, and living in accordance with them—is essential; otherwise, this divine plant withers or merely vegetates in a stunted state.

Every act of faith among Catholics—as well as the beginning of faith for those not born within the bosom of the Church, or the return to it for those who lost it through their own fault—is the fruit of reason, the will, and God’s grace (2); for to believe, one must grasp revealed truth with the intellect and incline the will to accept that truth; yet for faith to be a supernatural virtue, there is also need for God’s grace, which illuminates the intellect and assists the will. Faith is therefore a gift from God, but God requires man—cooperating with His grace—to desire to know and accept revealed truths and to perform acts of faith.

And what is the motive for faith? Is it the inquiry of one’s own reason, or the testimony of other people? No; it is the authority of God Himself—Essential Truth and Supreme Wisdom. In other words, we must believe because God Himself commands us to believe and has revealed the object of faith to us. But who instructs us regarding the fact and content of Divine Revelation? The Catholic Church, which is the witness, guardian, and teacher of revealed truth; and the Church confirms its mission with irrefutable proofs. For just as heralds precede a king, announcing his arrival, so too do numerous testimonies precede the Church, confirming its Divine origin—such as the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, fulfilled prophecies, the great miracles accompanying its twenty-century journey, the sublimity of its doctrine, the holiness of its law, its rapid expansion without human means, its astonishing fruits, its unshakable endurance despite persecutions, and the Divine power manifested in the sufferings of its martyrs and the heroic virtues of its saints. (3).

II. In this matter, human reason is not a passive instrument but possesses a wide sphere of action; for it can not only refute objections raised against dogmas but also, through its own inquiry, demonstrate the foundations of faith — namely, those metaphysical truths that God exists, that the human soul is free and immortal, that the natural law is binding upon all, that Divine revelation is possible, and that man can attain moral certainty regarding the truth of that revelation—as well as those historical truths that God has indeed revealed Himself, that some form of religion is found among all the peoples of the earth, that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Catholic Church is divine, having been established by Christ; [one] can also demonstrate the conformity of revealed truths with logical and metaphysical principles, as well as with the needs of the individual and society, and derive profound teachings from these truths, organizing them into a coherent whole.

This is what great Christian philosophers and theologians have done; and this inquiry, undertaken conscientiously and humbly, has led some—such as Saint Justin or Saint Augustine—to the Church, while strengthening others in the faith. Conversely, whoever refuses to learn Catholic doctrine, or allows passions and prejudices to sway their inquiry into it, bears the blame for their own error or lack of belief. Likewise, one cannot be absolved of blame if one fails to pray for supernatural light and—when doubts arise—neglects to consult knowledgeable people (especially priests), listen to sermons, or read works of apologetics. In all such cases, unbelief is culpable. Similarly, the loss of faith among those who once believed is not only their greatest misfortune but also a very grave sin—one for which they are responsible and which nothing can justify. It is of such people that Christ the Lord speaks: “He who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

Regarding the independent examination of the foundations of faith ...few possess the necessary qualifications, for this matter concerns primarily those who devote themselves to the study of theology; whereas the vast majority of Catholics place their complete trust in the Teaching Church—as one endowed by the Holy Spirit with the gift of infallibility — and they accept its teaching with the same serenity with which a child draws milk from its mother’s breast.

III. However, not everyone is so disposed; and herein lies the first difficulty arising from religion itself. For who constitutes this Teaching Church? The Pope and the bishops, assisted in their teaching by priests—men, therefore, who are subject to weaknesses and faults. It happens, consequently, that this or that clergyman does not live in accordance with his teaching, or even loses his faith as a result of an immoral life. Sensible Catholics lament this, yet they are not scandalized by it, knowing that within the Church the element... The Divine is inextricably intertwined with the human, and the Divine element—constituted by truth, law, grace, and authority—is immaculate, whereas the human element—comprising the people who proclaim truth and law, dispense grace, and wield authority—can be, and at times is, subject to partial corruption.

Yet this taint does not detract from the holiness of the Church, which nonetheless always fulfills its great mission. Indeed, the fact that neither enemies nor wayward sons can destroy it serves as proof of its divine nature. There are not—nor have there ever been—as many of these wayward sons among the clergy as adversaries believe and proclaim; nor is it right to lay the blame for their failings upon the entire order, just as it would be unreasonable to attribute the sins of John XII or Alexander VI to the papacy as a whole. For who, after all, would dare demand the abolition of public offices and label all officials thieves simply because one or another among them commits fraud? Moreover, what do the failings of a few individuals signify when weighed against the shining virtues and sacrifices of the Catholic priesthood over the course of twenty centuries? Meanwhile, shortsighted people—or those of ill will—hold the entire body responsible for the actions of such individuals; worse still, they foolishly and unjustly conclude that a Church possessing such priests cannot be divine, and that the doctrine it proclaims cannot be true; consequently, they come to despise the Church’s teaching and graces. Do they not resemble the sick man who, in the throes of a serious illness, rejects medical aid simply because doctors sometimes make mistakes?

The teaching Church also incurs hostility because, in relation to other religions, it proclaims as dogma that it alone possesses the fullness of truth and the sure path to salvation; — that it alone has the right to dispense the supernatural graces brought by Christ the Lord; — that no view of earthly life and the life hereafter can stand alongside its own; — that it excludes from its fold those who spread heresy, schism, or rebellion against spiritual authority; — that it does not compromise with the pernicious trends of the times, nor does it abandon its dogmas or fundamental principles for the sake of expediency—even at the cost of losing entire states and nations, as happened under Henry VIII—defending its independence and religious freedom against Caesarism or revolution, without yielding even to open persecution. Yet what sensible person fails to see that the Church cannot act otherwise, and that this is precisely its strength and its glory.

It also troubles some Catholics that the Church has so many implacable enemies and so often suffers oppression and humiliation at their hands; for they would prefer to see her always powerful, always triumphant, and always surrounded by earthly glory. But these people of “little faith” forget that Christ the Lord redeemed the world through the Cross—that is, through the deepest humiliation—and that the Cross, which seemed foolishness to the pagans and a stumbling block to the Jews, triumphed over the hatred of the Jews, the wisdom of the philosophers, and the might of the Caesars.

Christ also willed that His Church should “grow in humility”—as Saint Gregory the Great says—and ascend Golgotha ​​following Him, bearing the cross of suffering and humiliation upon its shoulders; yet it is precisely through the power of this cross that the Church wins glorious triumphs over its persecutors, such that in every age Tertullian’s words hold true: *Mori possumus, vinci non possumus* (”We can die, but we cannot be conquered”). How many enemies have risen against the Church throughout the ages—first Judaism and paganism, then heresies and schisms, followed by certain Eastern and Western emperors, and later the Reformation, open unbelief, revolution, and Caesarism—yet the Church triumphed over them all. This is precisely what compelled even Protestants—such as Schiller, Macaulay, Paulsen, and others—to express their admiration (4), and what inspired Saint Chrysostom to utter those words filled with awe: that it is easier to destroy the heavens than the Church.

Footnotes:

1. Cf. by the same author: *The Spiritual Life, or Christian Perfection*. 7th ed. Przemyśl, 1913. Vol. I, Ch. XI, 1.

2. I discuss this matter at length in Volume VII of *The Mysteries of the Catholic Religion*, Chapters I and II.

3. This will be covered in volumes V and VI, titled *Jesus Christ and His Church* (not yet published).

4. In his work *Philosophia militans* (Berlin, 1901, p. 65), Friedrich Paulsen writes: “The Papacy has approached its goal—that is, world dominion—to such an extent that, looking back a human lifetime, this would have seemed unbelievable. The infallible Pope governs not only the Church, with its clergy and religious orders—and does so without any internal resistance—but also exerts an influence on the minds of the laity, especially the educated among them, such as he never possessed before.” The means of securing this influence—Paulsen states—are Catholic Church doctrine and the Catholic press, particularly Neo-Thomist philosophy, whereas Protestant philosophy finds itself in a state of anarchy.

For some short-sighted people, the very mysteries of faith present a difficulty, even though they demand of man a “reasonable obedience” (5)—and not a blind renunciation of reason; for reason can—as we stated earlier—prove that God has revealed these mysteries and proposed them for belief through the Catholic Church, just as it can prove that they do not contradict reason. However, since these mysteries are not self-evident truths that cannot be denied; since, moreover, they require the submission of the intellect—that is, an act of faith—out of reverence for the authority of God who reveals and the Church that teaches; and finally, since faith transports man from the confines of the natural world into the supernatural realm—the world of God—and orders his entire life: it can happen, and indeed often does, that a person—swayed by the errors and sophistry of the intellect or by the perversions and sloth of the will—refuses to rise to the contemplation and acceptance of supernatural truths, to abandon cherished convictions or prejudices, to pray for light from above, or to live according to faith. It also happens that the intellect, lacking a proper understanding of religion, raises unfounded doubts against this or that mystery—doubts which the will, held captive by spiritual sloth, pride, or some other passion, refuses to dispel.

For there are those who, judging God by their own standards, refuse to believe that God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son—that He might die on the cross for mankind and remain with them in the Sacrament of the Altar—because they are unwilling to repay love with love; indeed, the very thing that ought to draw a selfish person to God is precisely what repels him. Meanwhile, the licentious person is driven away from the faith by the Sixth Commandment and the doctrine of hell, simply because he wishes for hell not to exist.

Another person grows angry with Divine Providence for allowing calamities and misfortunes to befall individuals, families, and nations, imagining that were he God, he would govern the world better; for he fails to reflect on the origin of evil and its place in the divine economy.

There are some—among Catholics, and even more so among those of other faiths—who dislike certain devotional practices observed in the Catholic Church, such as reciting the Rosary, wearing the scapular, going on pilgrimages, receiving blessings, and the like; consequently, they not only scorn these practices but even accuse the Church of fostering superstition. Yet, when understood as the Church itself teaches, these practices embody such profound insights, offer such sweet consolation, and can draw down such abundant spiritual graces that they constitute a veritable treasure for the properly instructed faithful. The Church imposes them on no one, nor does it attribute to them the same significance as it does to the dogmas of the faith, the Holy Sacraments, and moral principles. The fact that some people misuse these practices stems from a lack of proper understanding regarding them. Moreover, superstition is found not only among believers but also among non-believers—even very progressive ones—for among them, too, Buddhism, spiritism, occultism, and other aberrations find ardent adherents.

Those of other faiths—and Protestants in particular—are alienated from the Church by prejudices, falsehoods, and aversions instilled in them since childhood; above all, by the accusation that the Church has departed from the teachings of Christ by introducing, over the centuries, new dogmas or regulations incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. That this accusation is false can be attested to by converts such as Stolberg, Newman, Rouville, and others, who—prior to their conversion—thoroughly examined the Church’s articles of faith, ethics, liturgy, and history, and subsequently publicly declared that they had found within the Church the truth itself—and the whole truth.

Most people take offense at the Catholic religion because it demands conscientious submission to divine and ecclesiastical law—because it imposes rigorous obligations, commands the restraint of the senses, and requires fasting and confession, and because it condemns sins, even mere evil thoughts and desires; for here, religion encounters not only ignorance and the errors of reason but also the sloth and perversity of the will—that is, the passions.

IV. Passions have been, are, and will remain fierce enemies of religion, and this is hardly surprising; for religion is not merely some abstract theory or philosophical system, but a law of life for individuals and society alike. As such, it penetrates the deepest recesses of the human being, encompasses his entire essence, and imposes obligations upon him: it demands that the intellect pay homage to revealed truth, the heart offer love to God and neighbor, and the will yield obedience to the law and submission to authority; it defends the indissolubility of marriage, preaches self-denial, condemns even evil thoughts, and commands us to love even our enemies. Yet man dislikes humbling himself; he cannot bear the yoke and loathes the struggle against his own nature; he readily gives in to sloth and is driven by selfishness. Consequently, when he follows his desires, he easily takes offense at religion, viewing it as shackles upon his spirit and an assault on his freedom. Even if religion were to display its proofs before his eyes in all their brilliance, the will—subject to desire, or what is known as a corrupt heart—would not allow reason to reflect upon them; instead, it would compel reason to seek out objections—be they merely specious arguments or sophistries—solely to rid itself of an unwelcome truth. Now we understand why Holy Scripture says: “The fool has said in his heart” (and not in his mind): “There is no God” (Ps. 13:1); the godless man “refused to understand so as to do good; he plotted iniquity upon his bed; he stood upon every evil path and did not hate wickedness.” Everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be reproved (John 3:20).

Indeed, for many people, the stumbling block upon which their faith founders is not the dogmas—which they usually do not understand—but the ethical precepts of the Catholic religion; rightly, therefore, did De Bonald say that if any obligation were to arise from the geometric principle that the three angles of a triangle equal two right angles, attempts would be made to call that principle into question (6).

“It is also in the human will—in selfishness, pride, vanity, sensuality, and sloth—that one must seek the cause of the vast majority of errors of the intellect (7)”; and if we wish to reach the very source, we must repeat after the great sage Augustine that all error stems from sin (8),

and that “the world would not be unbelieving were it not impure.” When the Apostle Paul began to speak of justice, purity, and God’s judgment before the governor Felix—a venal and dissolute man—the latter became afraid and refused to listen; likewise, today, the truth is a repugnant monitor to many, so they stop their ears against it and persuade themselves that everything is a lie. What, then, is required to become an unbeliever? Reason, learning, or strength of character? No—but it suffices to follow the desires that please us, yet which religion condemns (9). Dr. Branca, a professor of geology and paleontology at the University of Berlin—though not a Catholic himself—explained the cause of this unbelief: “The masses embrace the atheist theory so readily because they are lazy regarding morality; atheism makes life immensely easier for them in this respect... They need only step down from the uncomfortable heights to which the Christian religion has raised humanity—heights where man can maintain his position only through great exertion—and descend instead to the comfortable pastures where animals wallow” (10). And what must one do to become a believer? Above all, one must tame the passions—a truth acknowledged, though not practiced, by the Genevan philosopher J.J. Rousseau: “My son, always keep your soul in such a state that you wish for God to exist, and you will not doubt His existence.”

Among the passions, pride and sensuality are the most dangerous to faith.

Pride compels a person to believe in their own infallibility, to scorn the insights of others, to acknowledge no higher authority, to refuse to admit error, to venture with the feeble lamp of reason into the winding labyrinth of inquiry and summon religion before the tribunal of one’s own judgment — only to reject what one cannot grasp. Religion, by contrast, bids reason humble itself before the light of revelation, believe in unfathomable mysteries, and heed the pronouncements of the Church’s teaching authority; in daily life, it calls upon one to constantly seek God’s aid, to place oneself above no one, to be meek and humble, to forgive offenses, and to confess one’s sins—even the most secret—to a priest. It is little wonder, then, that pride cannot reconcile itself with religion and serves as the prolific mother of heresies, errors, and apostasy. It also plunged into the abyss the likes of Tertullian, Arius, Hus, Luther, Lamennais, Döllinger, Loisy, and so many other Lucifers. Today, the world is dominated by the pride of the intellect—intoxicated by so many achievements in science and industry—as well as the pride of the will, which brooks no yoke; a pride reaching its zenith in the circles of Freemasons, freethinkers, monists, and the like. It is no wonder, then, that so many souls cast off religion and—even in the face of death—do not turn to God, for the eye of the soul, clouded by pride or corruption, cannot see Him; indeed, God “opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Pride also ensures that if someone has become mired in sin and lost their faith—or if they previously belonged to a sect or a schismatic group— He found it difficult to openly admit, “I have gone astray,” and to return to the faith—especially since life without it seemed very comfortable to him, and yet he was bound to his former religion by various strong ties.

Footnotes:

5. Saint Paul to the Romans 12:1,

6. Demonstration philosophique ‎Preface.

7. Dollinger, in Irrthum, Zweifel, Wahrheit, Munchen, 1845 Fichte’s words are also beautiful: ‎„Unser‎ ‎Denksystem‎ ‎ist‎ ‎o/t‎ ‎nur‎ ‎die‎ ‎Gesichte‎ ‎unseres‎ ‎Herzens“,‎ ‎(Die‎ ‎Bestimmung‎ ‎des‎ Menschen).

8. De‎ ‎vera‎ ‎religions‎ ‎C.‎ ‎33‎ ‎Reader‎ ‎Hettinger‎ ‎Apologie‎ ‎des‎ ‎Christ‎ ‎ent‎ ‎hums‎ ‎B.‎ ‎1‎ ‎Erster‎ ‎Vortrag.

9. Frayssinous‎ ‎Obrona‎ ‎Chrystyanizmu‎ ‎T.‎ ‎IV.‎ ‎str,‎ ‎120‎ ‎(Polish translation).

Intellectual arrogance—and the stubborn insistence on one’s own opinion that stems from it—is often accompanied by a craving for originality and a desire to distinguish oneself through views on scholarship, law, and the life of the Church, even in defiance of the pronouncements of the Pope as the supreme guardian and teacher of revealed truth; herein lies the source of the rationalist theories of figures like Hermes and Günther in the nineteenth century, and of the modernist and pseudo-reformist ideas of men such as Scheil, Loisy, Minocchi, Murri, Tyrrell, Schnitzer, and others in the twentieth. There are also those among the educated who, echoing the enemies of religion, blindly and thoughtlessly repeat that it conflicts with science and must therefore be abandoned; yet they refuse to acknowledge that among the faithful and devoted sons of the Church there have been, are, and will be so many men of genius and profound learning (11) who openly testify that there can be no conflict between religion and science, provided that scientific inquiry is conscientious.

Outside the scientific community, among ordinary Christians, it happens quite often that an individual—harboring a grievance against a particular priest due to slights suffered at his hands (even if sometimes merely imagined)—avoids the church where they might encounter that priest and neglects religious practices; worse still, they become prejudiced against the clergy as a whole and develop an aversion to religion itself, thus sliding into unbelief—not so much in theory as in the practice of daily life.

It is also an established fact that hatred arising from factional strife all too easily spills over from the political or social arena into the religious one. There are, for instance, people—especially within radical and socialist factions—who turn against religion primarily because the clergy belong to the opposing camp and oppose their harmful agendas; indeed, this is the principal cause of the persecutions that revolution instigates against the Church almost everywhere. This also explains how, between 1900 and 1908, Protestant pastors were able to recruit forty thousand apostates among Austrian Germans under the *Los von Rom* (”Away from Rome”) banner; they were aided not only by religious indifference and Prussian money but also by political frenzy (12).

For young people, the most dangerous enemy of their faith is sensuality. When it takes hold of a person, it burns away everything noble and pure in the heart (13), casts a veil over the mind so that it cannot see God and His law, and ultimately convinces the individual that the body is the only deity and sensual pleasure the only truth (14). Let us observe the young man who drinks greedily from the poisoned chalice of debauchery: intoxicated, he first forgets his prayers, avoids the church, and shuns the confessional; then he seeks out arguments against the faith to rid himself of its persistent admonitions and to stifle the voice of conscience; finally, he blasphemes cynically and mocks what he once revered and feared. Even when the passion within him has subsided, traces of destruction remain; and just as dying volcanoes spew clouds of black smoke instead of lava, so too a heart corrupted in youth continues, in old age, to exhale the smoke of soulless indifference toward truth and virtue (15). And this explains to us why many remain in disbelief until death.

Lust tore the English King Henry VIII away from the Church; it also led Montanus, Luther, Zwingli, and Ochino into apostasy, as well as—in our own times—the notorious Carmelite Father Hyacinthe (Charles Loyson) and others; these were, in a sense, cedars of Lebanon, yet their roots were rotted by sensual desire.

Today, lewdness has run rampant throughout the world, as evidenced by the cult of nudity and the prostitution of art to sensual lust; the alarming proliferation of pornographic publications, images, and postcards; the vile promotion—by certain novelists—of divorce, free love, adultery, and sodomy (16); the shameless debauchery in so-called *Orpheums*, cabarets, and music halls, and even in the theaters and cinemas of major cities; the ever-expanding traffic in human beings—specifically young girls—transported (primarily by Jews) and sold into brothels; the efforts to champion prostitution (17) and secure for it a measure of respect and legal standing in society; and the terrifying spread of venereal diseases, particularly during the recent war (18). It is no wonder, then, that... Today, so many young people are losing their moral integrity—and with it, their faith—because the weed of atheism flourishes most vigorously in the mire of debauchery. It is not difficult to explain why this happens. For whoever has surrendered himself entirely to debauchery and become its slave easily convinces himself that there is no God, so that he need not fear His punishment nor abandon his sin. The Savior Himself said: “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:20). May everyone, then, take to heart these beautiful words of Plato: “He who gives himself over to sensual lust or is swept away by anger will harbor no thoughts other than those that are base and mortal. But whoever, out of love for the truth, strives to contemplate immortal and divine things will attain immortality and achieve happiness, having preserved the divine within himself and carried God in his soul (19). May every young man, in particular—troubled by temptations against the faith—take to heart the words spoken by Blessed John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, to a certain libertine: “Break free from your passion, and tomorrow you will become a believer.” To overcome this shameful passion, let him avoid occasions of sin, pray fervently, and frequently receive the Holy Sacraments. Sadly, many a university student all too easily abandons his religious duties and falls in with corrupt companions, hearing godless and dissolute talk; is it any wonder, then, that he is drawn into debauchery and drowns his faith within it? The famous French poet François Coppée (d. 1908) described this sad tale of a young soul in his beautiful book *La bonne souffrance*. Here is his confession:

“I was raised as a Christian; consequently, for several years after my First Holy Communion, I sincerely and fervently fulfilled my religious duties. Later, things changed; yet I will admit quite frankly that this stemmed solely from the lapses into which the passions of youth had entangled me—lapses from which shame prevented me from rising. What drives so many—in a somewhat different situation—away from the Church and turns them from the holy faith is nothing other than the yoke of the commandments that the Holy Church seeks to place upon their senses in the name of the Supreme Lord. That is how it was with me, and that is how it is with others. Let them simply speak honestly and confess what they feel in their hearts. It is only after their fall that they—just as I did—seek out evidence in science against faith, because they want to free themselves from that yoke, at least in the eyes of their own conscience. That is true, but all of this happens, as I say, after the fall, not before it. Having once set foot on a false path, I ventured ever further; I read subversive books, listened to godless conversations, and observed wicked examples, for I wanted to convince myself that the ideal for man was nothing other than the satisfaction of pride and the indulgence of the senses. Finally, towards the end of my days, suffering visited me. Then the Lord looked with the eye of His infinite mercy upon me—I who, in the days of happiness, had so greatly misused His abundant gifts. And I began to believe again, and I began to pray again. I was advised to read the Gospel. Confined to a bed of suffering, I read and re-read it for weeks and months. Every word of Holy Scripture began, little by little, to come alive for me, until at last I, too, came back to life. Yes! In every word of Holy Scripture, I saw truth shining like the sun, and I felt its light penetrating my heart more and more deeply.

Footnotes:

10. Frayssinous, *Defense of Christianity*, Vol. IV, p. 120 (Polish translation).

11. In the work: “Der” “Stand” “unserer” “Kenntnisse” “von” “fossilen” “Menschen.

12. Cf. Chaps. III and VII.

13. Cicero, having cited the words of Archytas of Tarentum—”Nothing is so hideous and so destructive as lust; were it stronger or more enduring, it would suffice to extinguish the light of the spirit entirely”—continues: “As the enemy of reason, it hinders reflection, clouds the eyes of the mind, and cannot coexist with virtue” (De senectute XII. 41). Plato likens a person given over to sensuality to a prisoner locked in a dark dungeon.

14. “Those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh... The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace” (St. Paul to the Romans).

15. August Nicolas speaks beautifully on this subject in the Preface to Volume I of *Études philosophiques sur le christianisme* (Polish translation by Zamojski, 1853): “For many, the excesses have ceased and subsided, yet unbelief continues to cloud the reason; but what is surprising in this? Over time, the mind adopts and eventually retains the habits of the heart; the soul, once impoverished and darkened by passions, preserves the emptiness and blindness caused by the errors and prejudices with which it is fed. And let us add that human considerations and spiritual sloth always stand at the threshold of our soul, barring the return of faith—a faith impossible to erase without a certain act of estrangement, and, above all, without embracing the burdens upon which its preservation depends, as well as the virtues that accompany it.”

16. Such as, in recent times: Oscar Wilde, Guy de Maupassant, Anatole France, Émile Zola, Maxim Gorky, Przybyszewski, Żeromski, Zapolska, and so on.

17. Today, serious writers and physicians are calling for the abolition of the official regulation of prostitution, arguing that it facilitates the spread of vice and venereal diseases. (Cf. Ch. VI).

18. In March 1916, there were 800,000 soldiers in the Austro-Hungarian army suffering from these diseases.

19. Timaeus.

V. Alongside passion, spiritual sloth leads to unbelief—or at least to religious indifference. Many Catholics, especially in cities, make no effort to better understand their religion or to fulfill the obligations it imposes, simply because doing so requires effort—such as overcoming base desires or certain external obstacles. This spiritual sloth results, above all, in ignorance of the faith.

People today study, read, and research extensively, and the world is flooded with books, journals, and scholars. Every branch of human knowledge has its devotees—often ready to make great sacrifices—for the sake of science: some ruin their eyesight poring over parchments, others freeze amidst the ice of the polar regions, some swelter in the sands of Africa, and others risk suffocation in hot-air balloons. Yet, there is one discipline that can rightly complain of being neglected by many—a discipline no one can do without, for the fate of both life and eternity depends upon it.

In the home upbringing of children—even within Polish families—religion is not always accorded its proper place; it often happens that parents infect their children with indifference, or that a skeptical father tears down what a devout mother has built. It is difficult nowadays to gain a deep understanding of religious truths in our schools, and even harder to cultivate a love for a devout life; indeed, some teachers even scandalize their students through their words or conduct. Young people do study religion, though often merely out of fear of a bad grade; they attend church and go to confession, but rarely of their own volition; once the compulsion ceases, they eagerly embrace their newfound freedom. Prayers are often forgotten, church visits become occasions for sizing up the congregation, and it becomes difficult to persuade them to go to confession—so much so that many do not approach the confessional again until just before their wedding.

Later in life, base desires, bad company, and harmful books give rise to a multitude of doubts and objections, yet how few are willing to seek a thorough understanding of matters of faith. “Without effort and exertion,” said Malebranche, “we cannot clearly perceive the truth; for we are sinners condemned to earn our bread—not only for the body but also for the spirit, that is, for truth—by the sweat of our brow”; yet many people shun this labor, and thus Pascal’s words prove true in their case: “Religion is a matter of such great importance that those who do not wish to take the trouble to understand it better are rightly excluded from it” (20).

And what is the cause of this indifference?

VI. Some regard religion as a matter of sentiment—something, they believe, best left to simple folk who still require such a spur or bridle, and to women who crave tender emotions—whereas the educated man ought to act according to reason, unconcerned with dogmas or outward forms. They sometimes ask, like Pilate: “What is truth?”—yet, like Pilate, they do not wait for an answer, contenting themselves with a so-called philosophy of life that is nothing more than shallowness of spirit and baseness of feeling. “Many suppose,” Manzoni rightly said, “that this indifference is the fruit of profound study and advanced learning, that it is the ultimate and most terrible enemy of religion—destined to appear at the end of time to achieve the victory prepared by so many previous struggles—but the reality is otherwise.”

Indeed, indifference was the first enemy Christianity encountered on its triumphal march through the world. From its very first appearance, it was held in such contempt that examining it was not deemed worth the trouble. The Apostles proclaimed to the world teachings destined to serve as light, nourishment, and solace for the loftiest minds; they laid the foundations of a new civilization that was to transform Europe and the entire world—yet they were dismissed as drunkards. Saint Paul expounded truths before the Areopagus—truths capable of elevating the simplest, uneducated woman to a level above the wisest sages of the past—but the sages replied that they would hear him another time. They believed there were more important things to think about than God, man, the soul, and salvation. Likewise, Festus, the Roman governor, upon hearing Paul’s teaching on redemption, exclaimed: “You are mad, Paul.” That same enemy that rose up against Christianity at its inception rises up today as well; for the Church did not receive the promise that it would destroy all its enemies, but rather that it would not be vanquished by them (21).

Others make no effort to learn about religion because they believe they already know it perfectly, even though their minds are filled with misconceptions and, at times, a profound ignorance of the catechism. They are “half-learned” individuals—and, as is often the case, arrogant ones—who have merely sipped from the well of knowledge; this has left them intoxicated, unable to perceive the truth. They are too proud to preserve the simplicity of faith or to seek counsel from others, yet they lack the love of truth and the willingness to engage in serious study required to reach a well-founded conviction.

A certain writer aptly remarked: “Religious questions are among the most delicate and difficult, and yet these—along with politics—are the very subjects everyone considers it feasible and appropriate to debate without any preparation. Take the Catholic religion, for instance. It appears easy to examine, as it is open to all; and yet, if one reads the works of even renowned scholars, one is certain to find numerous assertions regarding the Catholic religion that are absurd and false” (22). Such people usually construct a religion of their own, persuading both themselves and others that they have discovered the truth, while in reality, they cling blindly to their own delusions. It is precisely this ignorance of the catechism and true philosophy that causes educated people—both here and abroad—to easily embrace erroneous theories such as monism, Darwinism, modernism, and liberalism, or even to become captivated by the fantasies of occultism, spiritism, Buddhism, and theosophy, or indeed by socialism and Freemasonry. Truly, even today there are many scholars to whom Bacon’s apt words apply: that he who has but lightly tasted philosophy may incline toward atheism, whereas he who has taken a deeper draught returns to religion (23).

In more recent times, the natural sciences, in particular, have been used as a weapon in the struggle against revealed religion; for—as Passavant rightly observes—”it cannot be denied that a one-sided study of nature can easily lead to naturalism and determinism, since nature, considered in itself, predominantly reveals the law of necessity” (24). Yet, whoever studies nature conscientiously sees in it the work of God and marvels at His wisdom. It is no wonder, then, that the most eminent naturalists have paid homage to religion (25). Admittedly, new projectiles are constantly being launched against religion from the camp of Darwinists and positivists—hurled, ostensibly, in the name of science—but other, conscientious researchers promptly step forward to defend the truth thus wrong (26).

Footnotes:

20. Pensees ‎ sur ‎ la ‎ Religion. ‎ P. ‎ II. ‎ Art. 17.

21. Manzoni‎Osservazioni‎sulla‎Morale‎cattolica.‎Prało‎ ‎1841‎Read. Hettinger ‎Appologie ‎etc,‎ ‎1875‎T.,‎ ‎I.‎page ‎30.

22. Mgr.‎ ‎A.‎ ‎Le‎ ‎Roy‎ ‎La‎ ‎religion‎ ‎des‎ ‎Primitifs‎ ‎page‎ ‎28‎ ‎Paris‎ ‎1908.

23. ‎Leves ‎gusius ‎in ‎philosophia ‎movere ‎forłassis ‎ad ‎atheismum, sed ‎pleniores ‎haustus ‎ad‎ ‎religion‎ ‎reducere‎(De‎ ‎Augm‎ ‎Scient.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎col.‎ ‎5).

24. Vermischte ‎Aufsdłze ‎S. ‎98.

25. Cf. Chapter VII. Among Protestant scholars, believers included Kepler, Euler, Newton, Herschel, Cuvier, Linnaeus, Humphry Davy, Quenstedt, Murchison, Liebig, Faraday, Lyell, A. Wagner, Agassiz, Oswald Heer, and others.

26. It is worth citing here the words from the testament of the famous Italian surgeon Porro (d. 1902): “The more we strive to explore the secrets of nature, the more traces of infinite Wisdom and of the Creator we discover; and the more foolish the claim appears to us that chance—or nature—brought about this wondrous harmony we admire everywhere, in the animal kingdom no less than in the plant and inorganic worlds.” See the same author’s *Tajemnice religii katolickiej* [Mysteries of the Catholic Religion], Chaps. II and IV (Przemyśl, 1919).

How appropriate then, are the words of the Spanish philosopher Jaime Balmes (d. 1848): “The Catholic religion has no need to fear scholarship; on the contrary, it stands to gain all the more the deeper the scrutiny to which it is subjected. It has no impurities to conceal, nor errors to hide, that would compel it to live in darkness and shun contact with the sciences” (27). What religion cannot abide is blind prejudice coupled with ignorance.

Others do not know religion because they have no time to think about it. The external world consumes them entirely; daily life sweeps them up in its whirlwind, so that their thoughts—chained to the earth—cannot rise above their homes, offices, schools, workshops, or shops to soar into the realm of faith. Such people often possess a measure of religious sentiment, yet this feeling—buried under the dust of daily tasks, cares, distractions, and amusements—stunts and withers away, much like a sapling lacking good soil, while their minds easily sink into doubt. This category includes scholars who see—and wish to see—nothing beyond their own specific field of knowledge, as well as officials and merchants for whom the office or the shop serves as their church. For them, religion scarcely exists.

Finally, there are others who do not wish to concern themselves with religion, lest they disturb the pleasant slumber of their lives. These are typically sybarites who desire to live in comfort and free from care—petty, effeminate minds that, like owls, shun the light; for the light offends eyes that never look beyond the earth, while also stirring up serious thoughts and compelling them to work on themselves—precisely the things they seek to avoid.

The consequence of this ignorance is, on the one hand, a host of prejudices and falsehoods that—like a thick fog—shroud many a soul, preventing the rays of truth from breaking through (28). How little people know of the Lord God and His nature; consequently, they judge God by their own standards. How poorly they grasp the narratives of Holy Scripture and the great mysteries of the Incarnation, the Redemption, and the Altar; it is no wonder, then, that they fail to accord them due reverence, while those who have lost the faith see in them nothing but symbols, legends, and myths. How many erroneous notions regarding the dogmas and history of the Church have been disseminated by writers from the opposing camp; this is the reason why Protestants and schismatics hold such a poor view of the Catholic Church—so much so that they require fervent prayer and extraordinary courage to cast aside their deep-seated prejudices and abandon their former religion. How many falsehoods circulate—even among Catholics—regarding papal infallibility, the Holy Inquisition, religious orders, and especially the Jesuits! (29) How many slanders do anti-Catholic writings constantly hurl at the clergy; and the world believes them, for the world wishes to be deceived.

On the other hand, ignorance of religion leads to disregard for it, and disregard leads to contempt; for it is human nature not to value what one does not understand. Indeed, for the person who does not think of God, who does not ponder His mysteries, admire His works, observe His laws, desire His rewards, or fear His punishments, religion becomes first alien, then unnecessary, and finally unbearable—so much so that he easily trades it for paltry earthly trifles, just as those island savages once traded gold for glass beads. It is precisely this spiritual sloth that causes people—otherwise decent, generous to the poor, devoted to their families, and diligent in their duties—to be negligent only in matters concerning God; consequently, they come to their senses only in the face of death and judgment—or sometimes, regrettably, do not come to their senses at all, should death unexpectedly cut the thread of life.

VII. Finally, the neglect of religious practices leads to a weakening of faith. The Catholic religion comprises not only dogmas but also commandments—commandments that rest upon those dogmas just as a structure rests upon its foundations. Thus, whoever transgresses the commandments weakens their own faith in the dogmas; whoever neglects prayer easily forgets God; whoever shuns confession will surely come to view it as an unbearable yoke and, eventually, as a mere human invention; whoever misses Holy Mass and fails to approach the Lord’s Table loses reverence for and love of the Most Blessed Sacrament; Whoever neglects the sources of grace falls into naturalism, dismissing everything supernatural as mere delusion. Such a person is like someone who has painstakingly learned a foreign language but fails to use it for a long time, causing it to become alien to him once again. Christ the Lord said: “Whoever lives the truth comes to the light” (30); therefore, whoever does not live the truth falls into darkness. May all those who have lost their faith take to heart the words of the philosopher Pascal: “Begin with practice. Attend Holy Mass and bless yourself with holy water; faith will follow.”

Unfortunately, the neglect of religious practices is encountered quite frequently, even among people who wish to be considered good Christians—that is, those who extol the sublimity and fruits of the Catholic religion yet fail to observe its precepts. And what is the reason for this? Some place little value on these precepts, even though they are, in a sense, the roots by which religious life takes hold of the soul. Others plead a press of business—duties related to their office, school, trade, and so forth—while actually squandering much time on idleness or frivolous pastimes; for how many moments are consumed by reading newspapers or novels, preening oneself, smoking cigars, and visiting theaters, cinemas, casinos, social gatherings, and the like?

Others grumble that these obligations are too numerous and burdensome; But is it truly difficult to devote a few minutes each day to prayer, half an hour on Sundays and holy days to Holy Mass, an hour—or at the very least, once a year—to cleansing one’s conscience, or even to observe such greatly mitigated fasts? No—the real cause is laziness, effeminacy, an aversion to any form of sacrifice, and a fondness for a voluntary lethargy of the soul. Sloth also causes even believers to be frequently absent in observing pious practices, and especially in approaching the holy Sacraments of Penance and the Altar.

VIII. These factors also contribute to the fact that the pulse of religious life in Polish society does not beat as strongly as it should and could. While the camp of non-believers among us is not as numerous or cohesive as it is elsewhere, on the other hand, there are not many people of strong Catholic principles who remain faithful to those principles always and everywhere—in private and public life, at home, at school, in the legislature, and elsewhere; people with fervent hearts who share in all the joys and sorrows of the Church and are ready to make sacrifices for any religious cause; people of apostolic spirit who, grateful for the gift of faith, strive to draw others to God.

Namely, there is little zeal among us for God’s glory and the welfare of the Church! Even today, the Church suffers greatly; the Holy Father is constantly oppressed by enemies; godless sects in Rome itself insult religion and prepare for a furious struggle against it; socialism and anarchism—and now, terrifyingly, Bolshevism—are spreading across the world; yet many look on with indifference or, worse still, assail the Holy See and the clergy with unjust accusations.

We show little generosity toward Catholic causes! Peter’s Pence, foreign missions, Catholic education and the press, charitable associations and institutions, houses of worship, and the like—these are the causes that, in a sense, reach out to us for alms, yet the contributions flowing to them are rather meager. One might say that the funds given are very small. True enough, but it is also a fact that there is no one unable to offer something, provided they were to curb their expenses and possess a willing heart.

There is a lack of Christian courage among us! Often, brazen or reckless individuals—in social gatherings, at public meetings, and in the press—dare to dissect the mysteries of the faith, mock religious rites, and slander the clergy; yet there is no one to stand up in defense of the truth, for human respect or timidity seals their lips. Moreover, there are those who, finding themselves among the wicked, imitate their evil deeds out of fear of ridicule. Others still are afraid to openly express their Catholic sentiments—such as taking part in processions, publicly receiving the Holy Sacraments, or belonging to confraternities and associations—lest they be branded as fanatics, bigots, or zealots.

Finally, others are deterred from participating in pious practices by a desire to distinguish themselves from the common folk—a form of foolish pride; yet our kings John Casimir and John Sobieski would publicly prostrate themselves in the form of a cross before the altar; Sigismund III walked with the people in processions and collected alms for the poor; Władysław Jagiełło kissed the ground during the Elevation; kings and queens made pilgrimages to Jasna Góra and other holy sites; and renowned hetmans and great thinkers were not ashamed to recite the Rosary.

What conclusion can be drawn from this?

IX. We must highly esteem and ardently love the Catholic religion, and consequently diligently preserve the light of faith in our souls—praying with Saint Augustine: *Noverim Te, noverim me* (May I know You, O God; may I know myself)—while living a truly Catholic life and carefully guarding against everything that extinguishes or dims this light, such as evil deeds, evil desires, evil books, and evil company.

Young people, in particular, ought to shun those who sow falsehoods or spread moral rot—figures vividly portrayed by J.J. Rousseau, even though he himself belonged to their ranks: “Flee,” he wrote, “from those who, under the guise of explaining nature, sow doctrines in human hearts that bring only misery; whose apparent skepticism is a hundred times more assertive and dogmatic than the firm tone of their opponents. Under the haughty pretext that they alone possess light, truth, and good faith, they subject us to their categorical judgments and attempt to impose upon us—as the fundamental basis of all things—incomprehensible systems constructed by their own imaginations. Moreover, by overturning, destroying, and trampling upon everything people hold sacred, they deprive the afflicted of the last solace in their misery and the powerful and wealthy of the only curb on their passions; they tear remorse for crime from the depths of the heart, rob virtue of hope, and yet boast of being benefactors of humanity. Truth never harms people” (31).

Footnotes:

27. Escritos‎ ‎postumos.‎Barcelona‎ ‎1850.

28. “Aberrations of the mind,” Moigno rightly observed (*Splendeurs de la foi*, Vol. I, p. 76), “are far more harmful than aberrations of the heart; for immorality, though a great evil, is not an incurable one—provided the mind has not lost faith in the remedy and has not elevated vice into a system. Sooner or later, excess breeds satiety, and the conscience makes itself heard. But if the intellect has gone astray and lost its sense of truth, if the very foundations of faith have been shaken and its principles distorted to the point where evil passes for good—how, then, can conversion be achieved without a miracle?”

29. Is the work titled *Die Geschichte der Lügen* a good one?

30. The Holy Gospel according to John 3:21.

31. Emile‎ ‎etc.‎ ‎T.‎ ‎III.,‎ ‎p.‎ ‎197,‎ ‎edit.‎ ‎1762.

If anyone has unhappily fallen into the night of doubt or—worse still—disbelief, let him strive to return to the light as quickly as possible; the way is shown to him by one of humanity’s greatest sages—Saint Augustine. In his youth, he sought the truth, but having strayed from the only sure path, he wandered into the errors of Manichaean heresy. Misdeeds followed upon his errors—sensual lust took hold of the poor young man and bound him in its shackles. For over a dozen years, he groaned in wretched captivity, struggling desperately like a beast caught in a snare; at last, he resolved to abandon his errors, for the sermons of Saint Ambrose had shown him the way to the truth, while the tears of his virtuous mother softened his heart and moved Heaven itself; yet he found it difficult to break the terrible bonds of sensuality. One day, while wrestling with himself, he heard the singing of a young boy repeating the words “Tolle, lege” —” Take up and read.” At that moment, he seized the book of Holy Scripture, read a passage from the Epistle of Saint Paul calling for a change of life, resolved to break with his past, received baptism, and became not only a holy Christian but a shining beacon of the Church.

Do likewise, whoever you are—having gone astray—who seek truth and Christian freedom. First, pray that God grants you the strength to triumph over yourself; pray especially through the mercy of the Savior’s Heart and the intercession of Her whom the Church calls the Refuge of Sinners; and let devout “Monicas” also pray for you. Having obtained God’s grace, shatter completely the shackles that have bound your soul, and cleanse it of sins in sincere confession; and to rid yourself of prejudices and errors—*tolle, lege*—read good books, seek counsel from enlightened men, especially confessors, and listen to the Word of God. And when, with God’s help and your own effort, the lamp of faith is rekindled, take care that the winds do not extinguish it again; hence... on the one hand, carefully guard against every passion; on the other, faithfully adhere to all the commandments and spiritual means of the Church—joining Catholic associations such as the Marian Sodality—and keep your heart humble and pure, remembering the words of the Savior: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent” (that is, those who consider themselves such in their pride) “and have revealed them to little ones” (Matt. 11:25); and again: “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:7). Let the light of faith shine upon your entire earthly pilgrimage until you enter the realm of blessed eternity, where faith will give way to the vision of God unveiled.

Footnotes:

32. More recent apologetic works include: Balmes’s *El protestantismo comparado con el catolicismo* etc. (a work translated from Spanish into French by De Blanche and by Dr. Haneberg); — Aug. Nicolas: *Études philosophiques sur le christianisme*, Vol. 4 (the first part of which was also translated into Polish under the title *Badania chrystianizmu*); — by the same author: *La divinité de Jésus-Christ*; — *L’art de croire*, Vol. 2; — *Du protestantisme* etc., Vol. 2; — Moigno: *Splendeurs de la foi*, Vol. 5 (against materialists); — Em. Bougaud‎ ‎Le christianisme‎ ‎etles‎ ‎tempspresents T.5(translated into Polish)‎ ‎—‎ ‎Miguel‎ ‎Mir‎ ‎S.‎ ‎J.‎ ‎L’accord‎ ‎de‎ ‎la‎ ‎science‎ ‎et‎ ‎de‎ ‎la‎ ‎foi‎ ‎(from Spanish) —‎ ‎N.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎Laforet‎ Catholic dogmas, their lecture, evidence and defense (from ‎franc, ‎translated by ‎X.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎Ołdakowski‎ ‎T.‎ ‎4‎ ‎Duilhe‎ ‎de‎ ‎Saint‎ ‎Projet‎ ‎Apologie‎ ‎ciriquede‎ ‎la‎ ‎foi‎ ‎chretienne.‎ ‎Paris.‎ ‎1885‎ ‎—‎ ‎Fr.‎ ‎Hettinger‎ ‎Apologie des‎ ‎Christenthums,‎ ‎5‎ ‎B.‎ ‎Freiburg‎ ‎1899‎ ‎—‎ ‎Vosen‎ ‎Das‎ ‎Christenthum und‎ ‎die‎ ‎Einspriiche‎ ‎seiner‎ ‎Gegner.‎ ‎bearbeitet‎ ‎von‎ ‎Dr.‎ ‎Rheinstadter,‎ ‎4 Autl.‎ ‎1881‎ the same ‎Der.‎ ‎Katholizismus ‎und‎ ‎die‎ ‎Einspriiche‎ ‎seiner‎ ‎Gegner 3‎ ‎Aufl.‎ ‎besorgt‎ ‎von‎ ‎H.‎ ‎Briill.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Alb.‎ ‎M.‎ ‎Weiss‎ ‎O.‎ ‎Pr.‎ ‎Apologie‎ ‎des Christenthums‎ ‎5‎ ‎B.‎ ‎Freiburg‎ ‎1898‎ ‎—‎ ‎Dr.‎ ‎Alb.‎ ‎Stdckl‎ ‎Das‎ ‎Christenthum und‎ ‎die‎ ‎grossen‎ ‎Fragen‎ ‎der‎ ‎Gegenwart.‎ Vol. 3 — Dr. A. Seitz, *Natürliche Religionsbegründung*, Regensburg 1914 — Paul Schanz, *Apologie des Christenthums*, Vol. 3, Freiburg 1887–1889; published in Polish under the title *Apologia chrześcijaństwa*, 1905–1907 — *Słownik apologetyczny wiary katolickiej* [Apologetic Dictionary of the Catholic Faith], based on Dr. Jean Jaugey, prepared and published under the direction of Fr. Władysław Szczęśniak and a team of collaborators; Vol. 3, Warsaw 1894 — Fr. Dr. Jan Żukowski, *O źródłach niewiary* [On the Sources of Unbelief], Lwów 1900 — Fr. Marian Morawski S.J., *Wieczory nad Lemanem* [Evenings by Lake Geneva], 2nd ed., Kraków 1903; *W pogoni za prawdą* [In Pursuit of Truth], translated from Italian (Gallerani S.J., *Contravveleno religioso*) by Aleksander Mohl, 5 series, Poznań 1907 — Fr. Idzi Radziszewski *Geneza religii w świetle nauki i filozofii* [The Genesis of Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy], Włocławek, 1911 Charles Stanton Devas, *The Progress of the World and the Church* (trans. from English), Warsaw 1913; Fr. Stefan Pawlicki, *On the Origins of Christianity*, Kraków 1889 — *Studies on Darwinism*, 1875 — Fr. Kazimierz Wais, *On God and the Soul* (Vol. II of the same work) — Fr. Adolf Szelążek, *Apologetic Teachings*, Warsaw 1901 — Fr. St. Bartynowski, Vol. I, *Handy Apologetics*, Kraków 1915. Deharbe’s *Larger Catechism* may serve for understanding the truths of the faith. Guillois, *Historical, Dogmatic, Moral, Liturgical, and Canonical Exposition of the Catholic Faith* (trans. from French by L. Rogalski) — Gaume, *Principles and Totality of the Catholic Faith* (from the French *Catéchisme de persévérance*), etc. Raffin — The same author: *Art d’arriver au vrai* (from Spanish) — Cardinal Wiseman’s apologetic writings, especially: *Zusammenhang zwischen*... ‎Wissenschafi‎ ‎und‎ ‎Offenbarung‎ ‎(from ‎eng.)

I. It is a sad phenomenon of our times that unbelief is becoming increasingly radical and brazen—that the divide between believers and non-believers is becoming ever more stark—and that non-believers are banding together to wrest faith from others, employing every possible means and acting with a fanatical ferocity; the consequences of this are so evident in France that, in 1902, a certain M. Delpech dared to declare at a Masonic banquet: “The triumph of the Galilean lasted twenty centuries, but his turn to die has come as well... The illusion lasted too long, but the god of lies is vanishing too.” ...in due course, it is destined to merge—amidst the dust of ages—with the other deities of India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome... As Masons, we can note with satisfaction that we are not strangers to this ruin of false prophets (1).

Similarly, in 1906, Brother Viviani (Prime Minister in 1914) declared triumphantly in the French Parliament: “We all—through our grandfathers, our fathers, and ourselves—have striven to spread irreligion. We have torn man from the clutches of faith. We lifted up the wretch who knelt in prayer after a day of toil and told him that beyond the clouds lies nothing but invention and delusion. We extinguished the lights in the heavens, and may they never be lit again” (2).

II. The decline of religiosity has assumed significant proportions—not only in France but also in other countries of Europe and the Americas—bringing in its wake a loosening of morals and family life, the intensification of radical, socialist, and anarchist ideas, and a regression of Christian civilization as a whole. A severe punishment for humanity’s sins befell it in the form of the devastating war of 1914–1919; yet, will this halt the sowing of godlessness and corruption? And who, indeed, are the sowers of unbelief?

III. Above all, secret societies, among which Freemasonry takes the lead. We have already described this sect’s attitude toward religion above (3); suffice it here to note that in many countries—especially Catholic ones—it has made the destruction of the Catholic religion one of its primary objectives (4).

Footnotes:

1. Cf. the same author’s *Masonry*, etc., 4th ed., Ch. II.

2. Discours‎ ‎de‎ ‎M.‎Viviani,‎ministre‎ ‎de‎ ‎travail.‎Chambre‎des‎Deputes,‎seance‎ ‎du‎ ‎8‎ ‎novembre‎ ‎1906.

3. Cf. Ch. II.

4. La MaÄonnerie combat combat le christianisme a outrance. II faudra bien, que les pays ‎finisse‎ ‎par‎ ‎en‎ ‎faire‎ ‎justice,‎ dut-il‎ ‎employer‎ ‎la‎ ‎force pour‎ ‎se‎ ‎guerir‎ ‎de‎ ‎cette‎ ‎lepre“. ‎ (Belgian Lodges ‎at ‎sessions ‎July 2, 1846 ‎and ‎June 26 ‎1854).‎In ‎1876‎ Masonic Congress in Paris it adopted the following resolution: “Our goal is to de-Christianize society by all possible means, and above all to crush Catholicism. However, we must proceed slowly, forging ever-new laws against the clergy; once we have established secular education everywhere, we will soon have a completely different generation—one with which we can do whatever we please.”

Its hatred of this religion is relentless and truly demonic; for it is the one that, through the words of Voltaire, calls to “crush the infamous thing” (*écraser l’infâme*), and through Brother Lanessan declares that the “infamous thing” is God Himself; it organizes meat-filled banquets and balls in Paris on Good Friday; — it establishes secular schools through the so-called *Ligue d’enseignement*; — it issues the rallying cries for revolutions; — it incites governments and parliaments to persecute the Church; — it injects, by every possible means, the poison of unbelief and corruption into the heart of society, and especially into the body of Catholic nations. Rightly, therefore, did the Popes—from Clement XII to Leo XIII—hurl spiritual thunderbolts against it (5).

In recent times, the power and audacity of Freemasonry have grown (6), especially after it—with the aid of radicals, freethinkers, socialists, and Jews—effected the separation of Church and State in France (1906) and overthrew the monarchy in Portugal (1910). The same is expected to occur in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere.

Other anti-religious groups have emerged from Freemasonry, or at least shared—or still share—similar aims; examples include the Illuminati, Carbonari, Guelphs, Giovine Italia, Odd Fellows, Know-Nothings, *Libre-penseurs*) (7), *Libre-viveurs*, *Solidaires*, *Discepoli del Satana*, *Antideici* (enemies of the very name “God”), “free school” associations, “cultural-ethical” unions, and others (8).

IV. Organizations of the Social Democratic party—which has established strongholds in our larger cities as well and is supported primarily by Jews—also sow disbelief. In their publications and at meetings, its leaders brazenly attack the precepts and institutions of the Church and hurl insults and slander at the clergy (9), thereby destroying faith in the souls of the “comrades.” Recently, there have even been assaults on priests, the desecration of churches, and attacks on Catholic processions. Admittedly, the more sensible socialists (including Vandervelde) warn against such “antics,” and even the Polish Socialist Party is now acting with somewhat greater restraint; yet, the more brazen “comrades” have dared to interrupt the reading of the Polish Episcopate’s pastoral letter in several Polish churches, and the socialist caucus in the Legislative Sejm has submitted an interpellation alleging that the clergy abused the pulpit during the elections (10).

An even worse spirit animates the anarchist groups that emerged from socialism—numbering over 40,000 worldwide in 1917—for their ideal is to blow up the entire present-day order with dynamite, and specifically to slaughter all those who hold power (11). They maintain up to 250 periodicals through which they spread their anti-religious and anti-social contagion (12). Communists and the so-called Russian Bolsheviks harbor similar aims.

Footnotes:

5. See: *Freemasonry, etc.* by the same author (4th ed., Kraków, 1914). The promotion of cremation—that is, the burning of the bodies of the deceased—is among the methods Freemasonry employs to combat the Catholic religion. This matter was discussed at the “anti-council”—a gathering of 750 lodge representatives held in Naples in 1869 to protest against the Vatican Council; by 1876, the first association of “crematists” had been established in Milan, vigorously promoted by the Freemason Gaetano Pini; and in 1887, an international league of such associations—which had also been formed in other cities—was established. Through a decree dated May 19, 1886, the Holy See, acting via the Holy Inquisition, declared that Catholics were forbidden from belonging to such associations, and by a decree dated December 15, 1886, it mandated the denial of Christian burial to those who voluntarily consented to cremation.

6. According to an official report published by the international Masonic bureau in Neuchâtel in 1910, there were 26,855 lodges and 1,744,778 “brothers” worldwide at the beginning of that year. Of these, Germany accounted for 4,890 lodges and 54,200 brothers; France, 543 lodges and 36,000 brothers; Italy, 327 lodges and 16,000 brothers; Spain, 79 lodges and 3,169 brothers; Portugal, 148 lodges and 2,887 brothers; and Hungary, 71 lodges and 5,182 brothers. The bureau did not state the number of Masons in Austria because Freemasonry there—as in Russia—lacked legal recognition; in Austria, it was represented by “humanitarian associations.”

7. The *Libre-penseurs* (Freethinkers) society—which has existed in Belgium since 1862 and is now active elsewhere (including Warsaw and Lwów)—wages a relentless war against “superstitions of all kinds”—that is, religion—and seeks to keep priests away not only from the deathbed but also from the family hearth. Members (known as *Solidaires*) pledge not to admit a priest at the time of death and to exclude all religious rites from their funerals. These groups also advocate for cremation—the burning of bodies—a practice forbidden by the Holy Congregation of the Inquisition on May 16, 1886. The principles of Freemasons and freethinkers are propagated in Polish lands by groups such as “Myśl Niepodległa” (Independent Thought, founded by Andrzej Niemojewski), the “Ethical Society,” and “free school” associations such as the Viennese *Verein der freien Schule*, which demands the elimination of religion from schools. In the Czech lands, the “Volná Myšlenka” association advocates the separation of Church and State and calls for the veneration of Hus and the establishment of a national church—a stance unfortunately supported by a certain segment of the Czech clergy as well. It may be said that a conspiracy against the Catholic religion exists across almost the entire world today.

8. In 1831, a society named the Independent Order of Good Templars was founded in New York, modeled on Freemasonry, with the aim of promoting total abstinence from alcohol in all its forms. Eleuterja, established in Kraków and elsewhere, disavows any connection to Freemasonry (see the same author’s *Masonry, etc.*, 4th ed.).

9. For instance, in 1907, Masons and socialists in Italy accused the Salesians in Varazze of heinous crimes against morality—accusations that, following judicial investigations, proved to be a shameful slander.

10. Polish socialist publications (such as *Naprzód*, *Prawo Ludu*, *Robotnik*, and *Latarnia*) and those of the agrarian movement (such as *Przyjaciel Ludu* and *Piast*) now complain that the clergy, by meddling in politics, are harming religion; they would prefer that priests have no influence on society and refrain entirely from addressing issues that—while touching upon politics—are closely bound up with Christian ethics and the interests of the Church, even though addressing such matters is, in fact, their duty.

11. Anarchists assassinated the Spanish minister Cánovas del Castillo, the President of the French Republic Sadi Carnot, King Umberto I of Italy, Empress Elisabeth of Austria, and King Carlos I of Portugal along with his son. They were also responsible for the assassination attempt on Alfonso XIII on May 31, 1906. In more recent times, they have committed murders of Catholic clergy—for instance, in Denver, North America, in 1908, and in Barcelona in 1909. In the latter city, a mob incited by anarchists and Freemasons burned churches (16) as well as monasteries and Catholic institutions (30), and murdered priests and nuns. Similar acts of lawlessness occurred in Lisbon in 1910.

12. The highest numbers are found in Italy, Spain, Paris, and New York (as many as 42). In Austria, only two such publications are issued.

V. The sowers of unbelief continue to be those daily newspapers and periodicals that remain in the pay of such sects and associations, or are published by progressive Jews—or, more generally, by proponents of irreligious progress and radicalism (13). How many errors have they spread and how many concepts have they distorted; what vile slanders and lies do they ceaselessly hurl! For Voltaire’s words hold true even today: “Lie and slander; something will always stick.” Care must therefore be taken not to place such periodicals in the hands of inexperienced youth; indeed, they constitute unhealthy fare for adults as well. Instead, one ought to read and support Catholic publications.

VI. Books, pamphlets, images, and theatrical or cinematic productions of a pernicious nature serve to spread disbelief; some of these conceal attacks against religion (14) beneath a scholarly guise, others openly mock it, while others strike—directly or indirectly—at the Church; others still—namely, certain novels—subvert moral principles and glorify passion, and finally, others propagate anti-social theories. The Apostolic See warns the faithful against reading such harmful writings and works, publishing an index of books dangerous to faith and morals for this purpose, yet its counsel goes unheeded by many. In recent decades, great spiritual harm has been wrought by the novels of Émile Zola and his imitators—characterized by vile cynicism—as well as by the writings of the so-called decadents, steeped in blasphemy, shamelessness, pessimism, and ethical nihilism (15). Such works—and indeed even outright pornographic writings and illustrations—circulate today by the thousands and poison many minds; how grave, then, is the fault of parents who allow their children, even those who are growing up, to read anything without discrimination.

VII. The non-denominational school is a sower of unbelief. Enemies of religion, as soon as they come to power, seek to eliminate the Church’s influence from public education and instead establish non-denominational schools in order to raise young generations in atheism; Furthermore, they draw teachers—both higher and lower-level—into their camp. Indeed, they have succeeded in doing so in certain countries—such as France, for instance—where religious instruction was not only excluded from government schools but crosses and sacred images were also removed, and the name of God was erased from textbooks (16). Elsewhere, including in Austria, liberalism introduced interdenominational schools and curtailed religious instruction and spiritual exercises within them, thereby causing religion to fall into disrepute among the youth. In secondary schools, classical studies and the natural sciences occupy the primary place (17). Students in their early teens are regaled with tales from mythology, and the heroes of Greece and Rome are extolled as ideals (18); Then, he is once again told to pore over the book of nature—yet in such a way that he fails to discover the name of God shining forth from every page; in short, for years his mind is steeped in pagan and materialistic ideas, while the Christian world—with its great heroes, sublime truths, and magnificent achievements — remains for him a *terra ignota*, or at the very least fails to exert the influence it ought to.

A further consequence of this approach is a certain disregard for Christianity—or, in some cases, even an indifference that easily slides into unbelief; and the observation made by Count de Maistre regarding the educational institutions of his day—that few emerged from them as good and steadfast Christians (19) —holds true for the schools of today as well. The demand for a non-religious school is currently one of the slogans of Freemasonry, which has established a “Free School Association” in Austria for this purpose.

Footnotes:

13. This category also includes periodicals for the common people in the spirit of *Zaranie*, *Przyjaciel Ludu*, and the like.

14. How many shallow minds have been turned by the writings of the likes of Büchner, Vogt, Haeckel, Darwin, Renan, and so forth.

15. Writers of this kind included Charles Baudelaire, Paul Verlaine, and Jean Richepin, as well as—from our own ranks—Przybyszewski, Żeromski, Zapolska, Walewska, and others.

16. Catholics in these countries have no choice but to establish their own schools at great cost—and indeed they do so—yet Masons have a thousand ways of undermining Catholic schools.

17. The eminent naturalist Rudolf Wagner rightly stated that the inevitable consequence of the predominance of the natural sciences over other disciplines is a crude materialism and the worship of the golden calf, and that the beginnings of this fetishism are already becoming apparent.

18. On the other hand, the prudent use of ancient authors deserves praise. Cf. the letter of Leo XIII to Cardinal Lucido M. Parocchi dated May 20, 1885.

19. “Des interets catholiqu.es” 67.

There are also serious shortcomings in the upbringing of girls, for the primary concern is often outward polish, while little attention is paid to instilling sound religious principles and true piety. Worse still, the prevailing anti-Christian spirit establishes higher schools for women that lack any religious instruction; the aim is to dazzle women with the glitter of superficial knowledge and puff them up with intellectual pride, thereby tearing them away from the Church’s (20) influence — fully aware that whoever wins over a woman gains control, through her, of the family hearth and the upbringing of children.

University lectures and popular talks often serve to spread disbelief. The Church does not fear learning; after all, it was the Church that preserved the remnants of ancient culture and, soon after regaining its freedom, established schools where its ministers taught secular subjects as well. For many centuries, the clergy cultivated various fields of human knowledge, and all medieval universities were founded with the permission and under the patronage of the popes.

Unfortunately, since the time of the so-called Reformation, not only Protestant universities but also some Catholic ones—originally endowed with Church funds—have become hotbeds of an anti-Catholic spirit; moreover, words hostile to all religion and advocating atheism are voiced from their lecture halls under the banner of “free inquiry.” It is hardly surprising, then, that many students lose their faith and join freethinking or socialist associations. The general public is fed this poison in the milder form of popular lectures or brochures.

VIII. Materialism is a primary sower of unbelief, spreading across every sphere of private and public life. It dominates the sciences—leading to the ascendancy of the natural sciences and the neglect of philosophy; it pervades literature, theater, and art—fostering a taste for a base realism that often descends into the defense of immorality and pornography; it governs the lives of individuals—driving a feverish pursuit of possession and sensual gratification; it shapes politics—promoting the dreadful principle that might prevails over right; and it permeates the entirety of modern progress—fueling the relentless drive to expand industry and amass material wealth. Emboldened by his astonishing inventions and the success that has gone to his head, he proclaims the dethroning of God and the apotheosis of man, boldly addressing him: “Man, you are the god of the world, for steam and electricity obey you, and all of nature is subject to you; why, then, should you bow down to some God whom you cannot see? You have an earth so beautiful—what need do you have of heaven? You have a civilization so advanced—what need do you have for religion? You have a liberal state—what do you have for the Church? You have a police force so vigilant—what need do you have for the clergy? You have legal codes and newspapers—what do you have for the Gospel? You have lodges, salons, theaters, cinemas, music halls, casinos, and factories—what need do you have for temples? You have parliamentary and club speeches— what need do you have for sermons?” You have money— what need do you have for God’s grace? You have matters of politics, industry, and education—why should you care about mere religious daydreams? You have a world so magnificent and rich in means of enjoyment—what do you care for an eternity that does not exist at all? Novelists of the 19th and 20th centuries contributed significantly to the spread of these tendencies, extolling a life free from ethical restraints and glorifying every form of passion—especially debauchery.

Under the influence of materialism—which spreads like a polyp through the body of humanity—the cult of the body and of gold is proliferating alarmingly today, bringing with it unbelief and corruption; indeed, for many, fetishism is becoming a religion. One might say that the pagan spirit seeks to dominate Christian society and eradicate the religion of the Cross—an aim in which, regrettably, it is succeeding among many (21).

This materialism in life has a pernicious effect even on believers, for it breeds in them a certain weakness, softness, and effeminacy—causing them to fail to defend Catholic principles as courageously and openly as they ought; leading them to grumble at certain Church regulations as supposedly too severe and out of step with the spirit of the times; or causing them, through an excessive infatuation with outward culture, to place less value on moral goods.

IX. Within the Catholic camp, considerable harm is being caused by the pseudo-reformist tendencies of certain clergy and lay writers—known as Modernism, Americanism, and liberal or “reformed” Catholicism. Driven by an idolatrous reverence for evolutionary progress and contemporary culture—which is thoroughly imbued with realism—these tendencies push Catholicism onto paths previously alien to it, ostensibly to “rejuvenate” it (that is, to adapt it to the spirit of the times) and to reconcile it with Protestantism and modern civilization. Not all proponents of these views go to the ultimate extremes—for they wish to remain within the Church—yet all of them clamor for reforms, whether in the realms of philosophy and theology or in the sphere of religious life and Church organization.

We have already explained above what Modernism aims to achieve. Americanism manifests itself particularly in the realm of religious life; specifically, it calls for downplaying certain Catholic dogmas and disciplinary principles so as not to offend non-Catholics, and for introducing “individual liberty” into the Church to foster “personal independence” among the faithful; it champions natural virtues over supernatural ones, and “active” virtues (namely, social action) over “passive” ones (such as obedience and humility); it disparages religious life and the three vows, regarding them as contrary to human freedom and suited only for weak souls; and it goes too far in the desire to reconcile Catholicism with Protestantism and modern culture.

These views are set forth in the book by Fr. W. Elliott titled *The Life of T. Hecker*—the life of Fr. Hecker, who was initially a Redemptorist and later the founder of the “Paulist Fathers” (d. 1888). Americanism found considerable support among the clergy and the laity—who were deeply enamored with individualism and material progress—especially since it heralded the victory of “Anglo-Saxon Catholicism” (characterized as a “Catholicism of action and liberty”) over “Roman Catholicism” (viewed as more passive, absolute, and external). These tendencies were lent weight by the renowned John Ireland, Archbishop of Saint Paul (d. 1915), who, in the preface to the aforementioned book, described Fr. Isaac Thomas Hecker as a model priest and an ornament and treasure of the American clergy. Even in France, there was no shortage of admirers of the book on the life of Fr. Hecker—translated into French by Father Félix Klein under the title *Père Hecker*.

Yet who fails to see the dangers to the faith and to Christian life that lie hidden in these erroneous ideas? Indeed, Leo XIII rightly condemned them in the apostolic letter *Testem benevolentiae* of January 22, 1899, addressed to Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore; in it, he reaffirmed the immutability of Catholic dogmas and fundamental moral principles, warned against the abuse of individual liberty and harmful compromises with liberal ideas, and defended “passive virtues” and religious vows, while expressing the wish that there might be a greater number of those “who practice the virtues that the Saints practiced in times past” (21).

Liberal and reformist Catholicism—which clashes with the principles of the Church in the ecclesiastical, political, and social spheres—manifests itself in the same way. As early as the 18th and 19th centuries, attempts were made to reconcile the Church with the “progress of the times” and with the ideas of 1789—that is, the French Revolution. Particularly in France—where Gallicanism and Jansenism, working covertly, had sown animosity toward the Apostolic See—the camp of liberal Catholics first advocated for the separation of Church and State and the democratization of the Church (Abbé Lamennais); later, they attacked so-called ultramontanism and the alleged “pretensions of the Roman Curia” (Abbé Loyson and others) (22), while accepting—ostensibly to prevent the dominance of clericalism—limitations on the Church’s freedom and the influence of religion.

Similarly, in Germany, there was no shortage of “Church reformers” among writers and university professors; some of them (such as Reuchlin, Meldegg, Schreiber, and Sedlnitzky) became “Old Protestants,” while others (such as Döllinger, Reinkens, Friedrich, Schulte, etc.) became “New Protestants”—or “Old Catholics.” Pius IX condemned and curbed these pernicious tendencies (23).

At the beginning of the 20th century, proponents of modernism and “reformed Catholicism” demanded the democratization of Church governance, the reform of the Roman Congregations—particularly the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Inquisition—a reduction in liturgical ceremonies, the introduction of the liturgy in the vernacular, a relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline, and the abolition of celibacy (24).

It is evident that if these tendencies were to prevail, scarcely a trace of religion or the Church would remain. It is hardly surprising, then, that Leo XIII condemned the extreme tendencies of Americanism in the aforementioned document, and that Pius X condemned the errors of Modernism, Loisyism, and Reformism in the encyclical *Pascendi* (September 8, 1907), the *Lamentabili* syllabus (July 3, 1907), and the *Motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum* (September 1, 1910).

History bears witness that the Catholic Church has been and remains the guardian of a salutary civilization and true progress; yet, it cannot alter its dogmas or its structure merely to suit human whims, for its origin lies not with man but with God. Thus, it stands unshakeably firm upon what it has received from God, even if millions were to abandon it—as occurred during the Reformation.

X. The development of religious life is also adversely affected by political struggles within Catholic nations and states, as well as by the hatred of one nationality for another. In Italy, for instance, secret societies such as the Carbonari, Young Italy, and others—initially through revolution and later in alliance with the Piedmontese government—strove for the unification of Italy; and since the Pope neither would nor could renounce his temporal rule, this hatred—specifically that of the *italianissimi*—turned against the Apostolic See and the Catholic religion, to the point where one of their leading figures, Garibaldi, did not hesitate to call the Pope a ghoul, the papacy the scourge of Italy, and the Catholic religion the ruin of humanity! (25).

Footnotes:

20. For accounts of such schools in France, see *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, Vol. III, p. 399. In recent times, such schools are being established in Warsaw, Kraków, and Lwów.

21. The leading figures of Americanism—such as Archbishop Ireland, Bishop Keane, and Fathers Klein, O’Connell, Deshon, and others—received Leo XIII’s apostolic letter with submission.

22. When the struggle over the dogma of papal infallibility broke out, a number of distinguished figures—Archbishop Darboy, Bishops Dupanloup and Maret, Father Gratry, Count Montalembert, and others—sided with the liberal Catholics.

23. See also, by the same author: *Pius X and His Pontificate*, Vol. III, 2nd ed.

24. Even within the Catholic youth association in France known as *Le Sillon*—founded by Marc Sangnier with the aim of reconciling democracy with the Catholic faith—dangerous tendencies and erroneous views regarding the origin of authority emerged, prompting Pius X to intervene in a letter to the French episcopate dated August 25, 1910; the *Le Sillon* association subsequently ceased to exist in its original organizational form.

25. Sensible people in Italy—even those sympathetic to the government—deplore the rift caused by the seizure of Rome and call for reconciliation with the Pope, a move to which the Masonic sect is vehemently opposed. Here is what Senator Porro—formerly an ardent supporter of Garibaldi and the revolution (d. 1902)—wrote in his will: “It is my most fervent wish that our homeland finally cast off the yoke of the sect and reconcile with the Pope, recognizing in him the head and representative of its faith—the very faith that alone can ensure its peace, strengthen it, and provide the vigor to combat those who conspire against the public good, those who seek to destroy and tear down every noble impulse of the individual and undermine our greatness.” (Cf. Gallerani) S. I. Religious Antidote. Series I, Vol. II — Pius IX and His Pontificate — Freemasonry IV (Ed., Chap. XVIII).

In France, Catholics are politically divided into Legitimists, Bonapartists, and Republicans—a fact that greatly weakens their strength vis-à-vis the Masonic-Socialist bloc, especially given their lack of a strong organization to date (26).

In Spain, the fratricidal conflict—first between Carlists and Christinos, and later between Republicans and Alfonsists—inflicted severe blows upon the Church. The Masonic sect constantly foments unrest there; in Portugal, it even achieved victory, leading to the establishment of a republic in which the separation of Church and State was proclaimed.

In Austria, two camps emerged—Catholic and liberal—while a struggle between nationalities, specifically Germans and Slavs, raged alongside them. Anti-religious associations sprang up within both groups. Now, following the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, there is concern that the new republics—German-Austrian, Hungarian, and Czechoslovak—will not be favorably disposed toward the Church.

In Germany, the strength of the Catholic camp is undermined by a dispute between the so-called “Cologne” and “Berlin” factions regarding interdenominational associations of Catholic and Protestant workers—formed to defend shared interests and combat the powerful socialist (27) movement there—as well as, from 1919 onwards, the struggle against the “Spartacists,” or German Bolsheviks.

In countries with mixed Catholic and Protestant populations, mixed marriages inflict considerable damage on Catholicism, as a relatively larger number of children are raised in the Protestant faith (28).

Finally, the Catholic countries of the Americas are the scene of constant unrest and revolutions.

Indeed, when we consider how numerous, cunning, and powerful the adversaries of the Catholic religion are, and how formidable the propaganda of godlessness and corruption is, we shall not be surprised that there is so much unbelief in the world, but rather that there is still so much faith.

Footnotes:

26. See the same author, Masoneria, ii, vol., ed., IV., Chapter XVII.

27. In the encyclical *Singulari quadam*, Pius X ruled that Catholic unions could enter into relations with non-Catholic unions to achieve certain economic benefits, but that it would be dangerous to form associations that were mixed in terms of religion, and that Catholics should have their own unions. According to the periodical *Petrus-Blatt* (No. 50, 1913), Pius X reportedly said in a private conversation: “Interdenominationalism is a bridge to indifferentism, and thereby to Protestantism and atheism.”

28. German Protestants are spreading anti-Catholic propaganda in Austria under the banner of the “Los von Rom” (Away from Rome) movement.

I. Our times present a strange spectacle (1). On the one hand, we behold the glorious victories of the Catholic Church: the succession of great and holy popes; the magnificent unity of the episcopate, clergy, and laity; the brilliant flourishing of theological scholarship and Christian philosophy; a growth in missionary activity and religious life unseen for three centuries; the constant and fruitful sowing of works of mercy; the splendid Catholic congresses—whether national or international, Eucharistic or Marian; and the deepening spirit of faith among profound thinkers, who are arriving at the ever-stronger conviction that only the Catholic religion offers the saving remedies for the maladies of the age.

II. This is evident in Polish society, as we noted earlier. It is evident in Italy, where, following the temporary victory of the revolution—crowned by the House of Savoy—an increasingly strong Catholic reaction is awakening and stemming the tide of powerful Freemasonry and socialism. It is evident in Belgium and Catholic Germany, where Catholic life is flourishing magnificently, particularly in the scholarly and social spheres. It is evident in England, where the Catholic Church—thanks to the efforts of figures such as Cardinals Wiseman, Manning, and Newman, among others—has risen to great prominence and is attracting noble individuals from outside the faith. It is evident in North America, where a vast field of opportunity is opening up for the Catholic religion (2).

This is evident even in France, where a Masonic-Socialist government wages a fierce struggle against the Church. It is precisely there that a number of distinguished lay writers (3) have stepped forward to defend the religious and ethical principles of society—principles undermined by pernicious trends—while the clergy, though stripped of their property and oppressed, have made great sacrifices to repair the damage caused by the separation of Church and State and to build a strong Catholic organization, something that had previously been lacking there. During the war of 1914–1918, a sort of truce ensued, leading the Masonic government to deem it necessary to temporarily halt its campaign against the Church—though not before having conscripted 24,000 priests and 11 bishops into military service (4). III. On the other hand, an increasingly numerous and ever more strongly organized camp of enemies of the Catholic religion—and indeed of all religions in general—is forming in today’s society.

Some, as proponents of materialistic monism, deny the very existence of God and openly profess atheism, while vigorously opposing all positive religion, and the Catholic faith above all. This group includes freethinkers, Freemasons, and the leading figures of socialism in various countries and of Bolshevism in Russia.

Others, embracing pantheism, identify God with the world—a view that amounts to atheism thinly disguised.

Still others acknowledge the existence of God but wish for Him not to interfere in worldly affairs; these are the proponents of deism, which is, in essence, atheism. Others reject all revealed religion and any supernatural element, acknowledging only a form of natural religion; these are the so-called rationalists.

Others, known as skeptics, do not formulate definite anti-religious theories but remain in a state of constant doubt.

Others accept some dogmas of the faith while rejecting others, or interpret them contrary to Church teaching, or even seek to reform religion and the Church itself; this category includes the so-called modernists and reformists among Catholics, and non-Catholics outside the Church.

Others regard religion as a matter of indifference, showing no desire to concern themselves with its dogmas and precepts; these are unbelievers—not so much in theory (for they do not reflect upon it) as in practice. Let us now briefly review the history of unbelief.

IV. First of all, we note that the Divine Founder of the religion, Jesus Christ, foretold that an evil “world”—a kingdom of falsehood and corruption—would rise up against His kingdom, a realm wherein Satan, the “liar” and “murderer from the beginning,” operates and holds sway; that just as the world hated and persecuted Christ, so too would it hate and persecute His disciples—that is, His Church; that false prophets would come as sowers of erroneous doctrine; and that times would even arrive when the faith of many would falter or fall away (5). All of this has come to pass.

Footnotes:

1. Read: ‎Frayssinous‎ ‎Defense of Christianity‎ ‎(from French)‎ ‎T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎— Roseliy‎ ‎de‎ ‎Lorgues‎ ‎Christ‎The Lord‎for‎our‎age‎(from‎French)‎ ‎—‎ ‎La mennais‎ ‎Essais‎ ‎sur‎ ‎I’‎ ‎indifference‎ ‎en‎ ‎matiere‎ ‎de‎ ‎la‎ ‎religion.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Dupanloup L’atheisrne‎ ‎etc.‎ in‎ translation ‎Polish:‎Atheism‎and‎danger social.‎ ‎(Przegląd‎ ‎cat.‎ ‎year ‎ ‎1867‎ ‎—‎ ‎18t8).‎ ‎Tenougi‎ ‎L‎ esprit‎ ‎d‎ ‎erreur‎ ‎aii XIX.‎ ‎siecle.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Nicolas‎ ‎Etudes‎ ‎philosophiques‎ ‎sur‎ ‎le‎ ‎Christiariisme T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Moigno‎ ‎Les‎ ‎splendews‎ ‎de‎ ‎la‎ ‎foi.‎ ‎T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Em.‎ ‎Bougaud‎ ‎Le christianisme‎ ‎et‎ ‎les‎ ‎temps‎ ‎presents‎ ‎T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎(La‎ ‎religion‎ ‎et‎ ‎l’‎irreligion).‎ ‎— Dom‎ ‎Benoit‎ ‎La‎ ‎cite‎ ‎antichretienne‎ ‎au‎ ‎XIX.‎ ‎siecle,‎ ‎—‎ ‎Les‎ ‎erreurs‎ ‎tnodernes‎ ‎Paris‎ ‎1885‎ ‎—‎ ‎Fr.‎ ‎Hettinger‎ ‎Apologie‎ ‎des‎ ‎Christenthums‎ ‎I.‎ ‎Band, I.‎ ‎Abth.‎ ‎Erster‎ ‎Vortrag.‎ ‎—‎ ‎X.‎ ‎Morawski‎ Evenings by Lake Geneva. Kraków 1902 — Fr. Żukowski, On the Sources of Unbelief. Lwów 1902 — Fr. Dębicki The End of the 19th Century: An Intellectual Perspective. Warsaw 1895.

2. Cardinal Gibbons, together with other bishops from the United States, played a prominent role at the World’s Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893.

3. Cf. Ch. HI.

4. See: Freemasonry, 4th ed.

5. See John, VIII, 44, XV, 18, Matthew, XXIV, 24.

When Christ appeared on earth, the majority of Jews—expecting not a Master and Savior, but a powerful leader and king — rejected His truth and grace. For their descendants, the Talmud became the oracle.

Today’s progressive Jews scoff at the Talmud; yet, as proponents of new ideas — and above all, of materialism—they harbor hatred for the Catholic religion; indeed, their newspapers and lodges spearhead the struggle against the Church and Revelation (6).

Among the pagans, the more enlightened believed in Jesus Christ once the word of the Gospel reached them; conversely, the benighted masses — wedded to idolatry — along with their priests (concerned with earthly gain) and emperors (who viewed the old gods as pillars of the state), conspired to destroy the Christian religion. At the same time, philosophers of various schools—such as the eclectic Celsus, the Epicurean Lucian, the Stoics Fronto and Marcus Aurelius, the Neo-Pythagorean Philostratus, the Neoplatonists Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Heracles, and above all Julian the Apostate — assailed it with the weapons of slander, mockery, and sophistry. Although Christian apologists successfully refuted them, their objections did not fade without leaving a mark; indeed, one might say that Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian were the masters of the likes of Voltaire, Strauss, and Renan.

V. Furthermore, enemies of the Church — heretics — arose from within the ranks of Christians themselves. Some rejected or passed over certain dogmas in silence — such as the Anti-Trinitarians, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Pelagians, and the like; others introduced false mysticism or reverted to Judaism — such as the Montanists or Ebionites; and finally, others attempted to blend Christian doctrine with Greek philosophical concepts or Persian dualism — such as the Gnostics and Manichaeans. Although the Church overcame all these heresies, their errors persisted among humanity; for error, no less than truth, is a seed that — once sown — does not perish but seeks out suitable soil to take root and, sooner or later, bear fruit.

VI. The Eastern schism was a painful wound — the fruit of the swollen pride of patriarchs and the nefarious politics of the emperors of Constantinople; for through it, the Eastern peoples — whom the sword of the Arab prophet had spared — were severed from the hearth of faith and Christian life and fell into spiritual stagnation, while their churches became prey to Byzantinism and servility, accompanied by a hatred of Rome and Catholicism.

VII. In the West, following arduous struggles against barbarism, the Catholic faith achieved a decisive victory and became the soul of all social relations and every aspect of life. Admittedly, sects did emerge during the Middle Ages — some with a pseudo-mystical bent, such as the Fraticelli and Beghards, and others with antinomian and antisocial tendencies, such as the Cathars, Waldensians, Albigensians, and the like; yet ecclesiastical authority, backed by secular power, put a stop to them. At that time, an attack on religion was viewed as an attack on society itself; this is why the Inquisition was instituted against heretics, and why the obstinate — deemed guilty of a crime against the state — were punished with death.

More damaging were the clashes between the Church and Christian monarchs who had embraced the principles of caesaropapism—and consequently often trampled upon divine law in their bid to dominate the spiritual realm—such as Henry IV, Frederick I and II, John Lackland, Philip the Fair, and Louis IV; for these conflicts fostered resentment within lay society toward the Apostolic See and the clergy, whose conduct was, regrettably, not always edifying. A particularly severe blow to papal authority was dealt by the struggle between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII, which was followed by the so-called Avignon Captivity and the Western Schism.

VIII. In the 14th and 15th centuries, anti-ecclesiastical and revolutionary tendencies were already emerging—whether in the heresies of Wycliffe and Hus, in the writings of figures like Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham, in the decrees of the French Estates under Philip the Fair, or in the schismatic upheavals of the Council of Basel. Nevertheless, everyone at that time acknowledged the need for religion, and unbelief was something unknown and monstrous.

It was not until the era of Humanism—the rebirth of classical learning—that pagan ideas resurfaced as the underpinnings of an anti-religious spirit; they revived in philosophy, specifically in the Neoplatonism of Marsilio Ficino and the pantheism of Giordano Bruno; in poetry, filled with enthusiasm for ancient mythology; in art, enamored of sensual forms and dedicating the brush or chisel alike to the pure Madonna and the lewd Venus; in private life, which prioritized worldly enjoyment (7); and in politics, epitomized by Machiavelli’s notorious treatise *The Prince*. In their wake came skepticism and naturalism regarding religion. Foremost among the representatives of this anti-religious and anti-ethical movement were Giovanni Boccaccio (d. 1375), Lorenzo Valla (d. 1465), and Ulrich von Hutten (d. 1523); and others who also took a hostile stance against the Church included Canon Mutianus, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and others. In its negative manifestations—alongside other factors—Humanism paved the way for the first act of the religious revolution known as the Reformation (8), which, like a violent storm, sought to overthrow the authority of the Church while setting up individual reason (that is, *spiritus privatus*) as the oracle in matters of faith.

IX. In this way, the Reformation undermined the very foundations of the religious edifice, introducing a spirit of subjectivism and negation into minds, and Caesaropapism and insubordination into ecclesiastical relations. By virtue of its own principle, Protestantism is increasingly crumbling into ruins; for while some sects—such as the Pietists, Herrnhutians, Quakers, Swedenborgians, and so forth—stray into the errors of false supernaturalism and mysticism, others, embracing rationalism, reject everything supernatural in the Christian religion. Indeed, the Socinians denied the divinity of Christ the Lord, while Zwingli placed not only Socrates, Aristides, Antigone, Numa, Cato, and the Scipios in heaven alongside Jesus Christ and the Apostles, but also Heracles and Theseus. Given such unbridled license of the spirit, it is hardly surprising that as early as the 16th century... There were individuals suspected of atheism—such as Ulrich von Hutten, Giordano Bruno (9), or Bernardino Ochino, of whom our Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius remarked that he had but one little sin: namely, that he did not believe in God.

Footnotes:

6. For information on the participation of Jews in lodges and in the universal revolution, see the same author’s *Les Sociétés secrètes et la société*, Vol. III (Notes and documents by Cl. Janet), pp. 22 and 658; cf. Chapter VI of the present work. Today, the leaders of Bolshevism are Jews.

7. In his work *De voluptate*, Laurentius Valla argued that pleasure is the true good and that there are no goods other than pleasure.

8. Erasmus of Rotterdam himself likened the Renaissance to an egg and the Reformation to the bird that hatched from it. See: Józef Szujski, *The Renaissance and Reformation in Poland*, Kraków 1880.

9. Italian Freemasons, however, erected a monument to him in the very capital of Christianity (1889).

X. The 17th century witnessed bloody religious wars and the rise of rationalism within the Protestant camp. Indeed, towards the end of that century and in the first half of the 18th, a host of avowed opponents of revelation—and proponents of “natural religion” and a morality divorced from religion—emerged in England; to name but a few: Herbert of Cherbury, Thomas Hobbes, Anthony Shaftesbury, David Hume, Collins, Toland, Chubb, Paine, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. Their writings fostered the spread of deism and indifferentism among the English upper classes, thereby facilitating the formation of Masonic lodges that espoused this religion “on which all men agree”—that is, indifferentism and naturalism (10).

XI. In Protestant Germany, 18th-century theologians themselves—such as Baumgarten, Gruner, Semler, Eichhorn, Rosenmüller, Wegscheider, Bahrdt, and others—labored to eradicate belief in revelation; they were aided by certain poets, such as Lessing, who virtually branded Christ and the Apostles as impostors; Wieland, who saw Christ as a “Jewish theurge”; or Goethe, who lamented that “the moral revolution brought about by Christianity replaced the delightful Venus with a pale Virgin, and the statue of Apollo with the sorrowful image of the Crucified One” (11). King Frederick II of Prussia believed in nothing and, despite his professed tolerance, hated the Catholic Church.

XII. The plague of unbelief spread from Protestants to Catholics, establishing its main stronghold in France; there, the moral decadence characterizing the Regency of Philip, Duke of Orléans, and the reign of Louis XV—compounded by Jansenist heresy and a pagan-style upbringing (12)—weakened the religious spirit among the upper classes. Voltaire (born François-Marie Arouet, 1694–1778)—influenced by the errors of English deists and the cynicism of Frederick II—waged a war to the death against the Catholic religion, rallying under the slogan *Écrasez l’infâme* (”Crush the loathsome thing”) and employing lies, slander, and mockery as his weapons. At the same time, a circle of freethinkers (*esprits forts*) emerged—men of great talent, courage, and perversity—intent on, in Voltaire’s words, “destroying what twelve scoundrels and fools had built” (13). To this end, Diderot and d’Alembert publish the *Encyclopédie*; Maillet, d’Holbach, Lamarck, Helvétius, La Mettrie, Lagrange, and the author of *Système de la nature* revive the old errors of Epicurus and urge man to live like an animal; Jean-Jacques Rousseau propagates deism, extols the state of nature, and calls for revolution.

XIII. In short, there had previously been no instance of so many writers within a Christian nation publicly proclaiming that God does not exist, that Providence is an empty term, the afterlife a delusion, man a being devoid of free will, vice and virtue human inventions, and Christianity a collection of superstitions (14). While the pseudo-reformers of the 16th century cried “Away with Catholicism,” and the deists of the 17th century “Away with Christianity,” the watchword of the Encyclopedists was “Away with religion.” Through their machinations, a powerful camp of the enemies of religion is being formed across Europe, under the covert—yet all the more dangerous leadership of secret sects, particularly the Freemasons and their kindred Illuminati (15); in the 18th century, these ranks included not only philosophers and men of letters—such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, d’Alembert, d’Holbach, Helvétius, La Mettrie, Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Kant, Fichte, and others—but also the architects of the subsequent revolution—such as Count Mirabeau, Lafayette, Sieyès, Brissot, Condorcet, Bailly, Lally-Tollendal, Babeuf, Danton, Robespierre, Marat, Saint-Just, Lameth, Philippe Égalité, Barnave, and others—as well as ministers and statesmen—such as Count d’Aranda, the Duke of Alba, Necker, Franklin, Washington, Prince Kaunitz, Van Swieten, Fox, Count Cobenzl, Prince Potemkin, Brühl, and others. — but even kings and princes—such as Francis I (German Emperor), Frederick II and Frederick William III (Kings of Prussia), Stanisław August Poniatowski, Gustav III of Sweden, Christian VII of Denmark, the Prince of Wales, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, and so forth—and, what is worse, even bishops—such as Talleyrand, Podoski, Dalberg, Count Schaffgotsch, Henry Velbruck, and Michael Brigiddo... not to mention the aristocracy, which was everywhere riddled with debauchery and unbelief. Soon, a fierce struggle against the Church erupted; its first act was the suppression of the Jesuits, carried out with unparalleled cynicism; the second was the vile humiliation of the Holy See in the persons of Popes Clement XIII, Clement XIV, and Pius VI; and the third, finally, was the revolution.

XIV. For when the anti-religious spirit in France infected not only the upper classes but also the middle and lower ones, a strong urge manifested itself among them to realize the ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau—that is, to overthrow the existing order; herein lay the source of the revolution, which from the very outset turned its weapons against the Catholic religion and did not rest until it had driven it out of France in 1793. From then on, Reason was to be the sole deity of the free nation, and the embodiment of this deity became a public prostitute, who — amidst vile orgies — was placed upon the altar of Notre-Dame (November 10, 1793).Even earlier—on August 10, 1793—a statue of “Nature” was erected in the Place de la Bastille, whereupon Hérault de Séchelles, President of the Convention, paid homage to it in the name of the nation. The crowning achievement of this work was the massacre of many priests who refused to accept the “Civil Constitution of the Clergy,” the deportation from Rome of Pius VI — an elderly man on the verge of death—and the erection of a “tree of liberty” facing St. Peter’s Basilica.

The situation was little better in Germany, where rationalism—hand in hand with Freemasonry—was rooting out Christian faith from people’s minds, while Febronianism and the Josephinism that followed in its wake were poisoning the spirit of Catholicism. Emperor Joseph II spearheaded this movement as a proponent of a “state religion,” aided by such Catholic theologians as Hontheim, Eybel, Hedderich, Schneider, Dannemayer, Kliipfel, Pehem, Royko, Werkmeister, and others.

Voltaireanism made its way into Poland from Versailles and Nancy (17), bringing Freemasonry and moral corruption in its wake (18). King Stanisław August lacked deep religious principles and, under the name “Salsinatus,” belonged to a Warsaw Masonic lodge. A significant number of the nobility emulated the French aristocracy in their lifestyles, and—most lamentably—the majority of bishops were unworthy of such a holy office. In short, unbelief... It spread among us from above; yet, thanks to deep-rooted traditions, the national character, and severe divine chastisement, it was not as radical or fanatical as it was elsewhere.

Footnotes:

10. In 1717, the English Grand Lodge was formed from four earlier lodges, and the general statutes of Freemasonry were promulgated in 1723. See: *Masonerya* [Freemasonry], etc., by the same author, 4th ed., Kraków 1914.

11. As he lay dying, Goethe asked for a colossal head of Jupiter to be placed at his feet—an image to which he addressed his morning prayer each day. He was indifferent to all religions, save for Christianity, which he detested—much like “tobacco and bedbugs” (according to Moigno, *Les splendeurs de la foi*, Vol. I, p. 82). On the other hand, the influence of Catholicism is evident in the finest works of Goethe and Schiller, leading Dr. Grupp to remark: *Die schönsten Werke Schillers und Goethes atmen katholische Luft* (cf. *Jenseitsreligion*, 180).

12. Napoleon I stated bluntly that the colleges of that time were the true cradle of the revolution: “Let us reflect for a moment on the incredible folly of those who claim to want to educate us. They ought, in truth, to exert every effort to eradicate the ideas of paganism and idolatry from our minds; for if anything can weaken the sentiment of faith, it is surely constant exposure to the excesses of pagan absurdity. Yet what do these wise educators do? They transport us into the midst of the Greeks, the Romans, and the countless deities of their preposterous mythology. This is precisely what happened to me in my youth, and I still feel the impression it left upon my mind to this day. It occurred at a moment when there was the greatest need to sustain within me the sentiments of faith—sentiments that were still strong at the time...” “...when those fools had filled me with all manner of absurdities from the ancient world and dealt a terrible blow to my youthful convictions, so that doubt took possession of my spirit.” (Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène, Vol. II, p. 123). See also: Lamartine, *Mémoire des aumôniers des collèges de Paris*; Gaume, *La Révolution, etc.* (Paris, 1856–59) and *Le Ver rongeur des sociétés modernes ou le paganisme dans l’éducation* (Paris, 1851).

13. Voltaire’s letter to d’Alembert of June 24, 1760.

14. Frayssinous, *Defense of Christianity* (Polish translation from 1828, Vol. IV, p. 126).

15. The Order of the Illuminati (*Orden der Illuminaten*) was founded on May 1, 1776, in Ingolstadt by Adam Weishaupt, a professor of canon law, with the assistance of Baron Knigge. The Order’s symbol was a star bearing the letter “G” (*gratia*). See: *Masonry, etc.*, 4th ed., Kraków 1914.

16. See, by the same author: *The French Revolution and Religion* (Kraków, 1890) and in the collection *Selected Sermons and Speeches*.

17. Stanisław Leszczyński—known as “le philosophe bienfaisant”—resided here for a time.

18. Read by the same author, Freemasonry, etc., 4th edition, Chapter XXIV, and X. Stan. Załuski T. J. O Masonii in Poland II ed. 1907.

Thus, the corruption rampant in royal courts and the homes of the powerful; the writings of the Encyclopedists in France, the Deists in England, and the rationalists and Josephinists in Germany;

the machinations of secret sects; the pagan trend in school education; and, finally, the nefarious policies of rulers and their ministers—these were the causes of the unbelief of the eighteenth century.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, a certain reaction set in. Minds long steeped in the poison of anti-religious and anti-social ideas were sobered by the sight of torrents of blood and smoking ruins; seeking a remedy against the mighty revolution, they turned to the religion that had previously been so scorned and reviled. Yet the forces of dissolution accumulated during the eighteenth century did not vanish; indeed, reinforced by the pernicious currents of the nineteenth century, they resumed their destructive work.

XV. In the realm of theology, rationalism wrought terrible havoc among Protestants, to the point where scarcely more than tattered remnants remained of the teachings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and other leading figures of the Reformation. Under the influence of German philosophy and historical hyper-criticism, a large number of Protestant theologians—particularly those of the Tübingen School (19) —denied the divine origin of Christianity and the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures; David Strauss (d. 1874) went so far as to characterize the life of Jesus Christ as the personification of a general religious idea, the Gospels as a collection of myths, and a personal God as a product of the human spirit. In the wake of the Prussian *Kulturkampf* unbelief intensified in Protestant Germany; while pastors themselves (such as Lasko, Sydow, and others) openly and with impunity challenged the divinity of Christ the Lord, a significant portion of the population—particularly in the cities—ceased baptizing their children and attending church services. More recently, certain pastors—such as Traub, Andersen, Jatho, Heydorn, and others—have openly challenged the fundamental dogmas of Christianity, and many laypeople are following their lead and abandoning the established Church. At the same time, new sects with pseudo-mystical or rationalist leanings are constantly emerging from within Protestantism; thus, Protestantism has become a bridge to atheism.

Rationalism remains rampant among Protestant theologians today—a rationalism that utterly rejects Divine revelation and portrays Christian doctrine, particularly regarding the mysteries of faith, as a tapestry of poetic allegories and a framework for philosophical speculation; yet, proponents of these anti-Christian theories hold university chairs or serve as pastors. It is hardly surprising, then, that faith is waning within the Protestant camp and that writers such as Bruno Bauer, Albert Kalthoff, William Smith, Arthur Drews (20), and others have asserted that Jesus Christ never existed at all and that Christianity originated in pagan mystery cults.

The Catholic Church constantly stands guard over Divine Revelation and condemns both extreme rationalism—which rejects Divine Revelation and the supernatural order—and semi-rationalism (or moderate rationalism), which indeed accepts Divine Revelation but limits it to that which is natural—found in the works of creation and the history of the world—while excessively overestimating the powers of reason (21).

Hand in hand with rationalism goes progressivism—which regards the Catholic Church as a human creation and dogmas as mutable opinions subject to constant and indefinite evolution—as well as indifferentism and latitudinarianism, which assert that all positive religions are merely transitional forms of a single natural religion (deism) and that all Christian denominations are but branches of the same tree, implying that any person may choose whichever religion they prefer, since “people adhering to any religion can be saved, provided they live according to the principles of general morality.”

All these trends were condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX of 1864 (Props. III–XIV), as well as in the canons of the third session of the Vatican Council (On Revelation—On Faith—On Faith and Reason). In light of these canons, the following positions also cannot stand: naturalism—which, like materialism, equates nature with God, or else—while accepting the existence of a God separate from the world—denies Him the act of creation and any influence upon the world and man (22); pantheism—whether hylozoistic or idealistic (23), which will be discussed below; ontologism—which maintains that necessary and absolute ideas are innate to us and are nothing other than God Himself, thereby rendering God a sort of abstract idea of ​​universal being (24); and, finally, extreme traditionalism—or fideism—which claims that human reason, through independent inquiry, is incapable of arriving at a knowledge of God’s existence, the immortality of the soul, and the freedom of the will, unless it receives assistance... Revelation and Tradition as the sole criteria of truth (25).

In the 19th century, these theories found a handful of adherents even among Catholic writers; worse still, wounded pride, an aversion to celibacy, an uncritical embrace of the ideas of the age, and political agitation—particularly in Germany—drove certain clergy, and the laity who followed them, to form new sects, such as the Boozians, the Maurerians, the German Catholics (26), the Old Catholics in Germany (27), the French Catholic Church in France (28), the Catholic-Apostolic Church in Belgium (29), and the Italian Catholic Church in Italy (30); and all these sects marked their brief and inglorious existence above all by hatred toward the mother from whose breast they had torn themselves away. Their errors led many a mind astray from Catholic truth. In the 20th century, a philosophical-theological system known as Modernism emerged within Catholic intellectual circles; as it was contrary to the teaching of the Church, it was condemned by the Holy Father Pius X.

Modernists, blindly following Kant—the “philosopher of Protestantism”—maintain that human reason, confined to the sphere of phenomena, cannot rise to God nor know His existence from visible things, as the Catholic Church teaches. This “agnosticism” has led them to “immanentism”—that is, to the claim that religion does not originate from Divine Revelation (backed by the authority of God Himself and the infallible teaching office of the Church) but rather from so-called “vital immanence”: a religious sense or feeling that spontaneously reveals God within one’s own “self”—or the so-called “subconscious”—and, through it, to human consciousness. Thus, it encompasses the reality of the Godhead as its object and its external cause (31), while arising from a longing for that which is otherworldly, infinite, ideal, and Divine (32). This subjective and immediate conviction of God’s existence and action makes a person a believer, and faith is, in a sense, a “vision of God.”

Footnotes:

19. See ‎Chapter ‎III.‎ ‎Reader ‎Hettinger‎ ‎Die‎ ‎Krissis‎ ‎des‎ ‎Chrisłenthums. Protestantismus und kath. Kirche, Freiburg, 1881.

20. At the 1910 religious congress in Berlin and in his work *Die Christusmythe*, Artur Drews argued that Christ is a mythical figure. (Cf. *Przegląd Powszechny*, January 1919, a treatise by Fr. Urban, S.J.)

21. Pius IX condemned the errors of the theologians Hermes, Günther, and Frohschammer, which bordered on semi-rationalism.

22. Syllabus, Prop. II — Vatican Council, Sess. III, Can. I, 5.

23. Syllabus, Prop. I — Vatican Council, Sess. III, Can. I, 3–4.

24. Condemned by a decree of the Holy Inquisition dated September 18, 1861, ontologism was represented notably by Gioberti, Rosmini, Ubaghs, and others.

25. Vatican Council, Session III, Canon 5 on Revelation. Lamennais, de Bonald, Bonnetty, Bautain, Ventura, and Ubaghs leaned towards traditionalism. (See *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, Vol. III, Ch. XVI.)

26. Its founders were the apostates Ronge (d. 1887) and Czerski (d. 1889), both of whom had been disciplined for immoral conduct.

27. The sect formed by opponents of the dogma of papal infallibility still exists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, though its membership declines year by year. Its leading figures included Döllinger, Reinkens, Herzog, Loyson, and others.

28. Its founder was the apostate Ferdinand-François Châtel (d. 1857). He was later followed by the former Carmelite Karol Loyson (Fr. Hyacinthe, d. 1913), the founder of the “Catholic-Gallican” church.

29. Its creator was the apostate Hilsen.

30. Twórcą‎ ‎był‎ ‎apostata‎ ‎Domenico‎ ‎Panelli.‎ ‎(Czyt.‎ ‎tegoż‎ ‎autora Pius‎ ‎IX‎ ‎i‎ ‎Jego‎ ‎Pontyfikat‎ ‎T.‎ ‎III.

31. Cf. L. Billot, S.J., *De immutabilitate traditionis contra modernam haeresim evolutionismi* (Rome, 1907); *Szkice o modernizmie* [Sketches on Modernism], from *Przegląd Powszechny* (Kraków, 1911); Rev. Dr. Andrzej Dobroniewski, *Modernizm i moderniści* [Modernism and Modernists] (Poznań, 1911); Corbone, *De modernistarum doctrinis* (1909); Chr. Pesch, S.J., *Eine Untersuchung über den Modernismus* (Freiburg, 1908); *Gazeta Kościelna*, 1915, No. 44 et seq.; *Podręczna encyklopedya kościelna* [Handy Church Encyclopedia] (entry: “Modernism”), which provides a detailed list of relevant literature; *Przysięga antymodernistyczna* [The Anti-Modernist Oath] by Rev. Dr. Czesław Sokołowski (Warsaw, 1916).

32. The following passage from the Oath Against Modernism applies here: “I firmly hold and openly profess that faith is not a blind religious sentiment welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the action of a well-disposed will, but rather a genuine assent to truth received from without through hearing.” Even earlier, the First Vatican Council condemned the notion that people are drawn to faith solely by internal personal experience or private revelation.

According to the Modernists, revelation is contained within religious sentiment, for through it God speaks to the soul, allowing man to know God via feeling and personal experience; reason, meanwhile, has a role in religious matters akin to that of a painter who clarifies and refreshes the blurred or indistinct features of a picture—meaning that “the religious person must work out his faith through thought,” and thus religion becomes a human creation; yet who fails to see that this is precisely what Satan desired when, tempting our first parents, he promised: “You shall be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:2)? Since religious sentiment adapts to the individualities of particular people and undergoes various vicissitudes, constant change is inevitable—and continuous progress (“evolutionism”) necessary—in every religion, including the Catholic one; from this it follows that all religions are true only insofar as they are living and correspond to the needs of the times (33).

The Catholic religion—so they claim—originated in the consciousness of Christ, whom Modernists regard as a man of superior self-awareness and exceptional qualities—greater than Moses, Zoroaster, Mohammed, or Buddha—because He most profoundly experienced the revelation of the Divinity within Himself; however, a distinction must be made between the real or historical Christ and the Christ of “faith”—that is, the Christ envisioned by His disciples and by subsequent generations. Christianity evolved over the centuries under the influence of various factors; And the self-awareness of the Christian is a further development of Christ’s self-awareness, just as a plant is the development of a seed. Holy Scripture is the result of the Christian life and the fruit of the experiences of extraordinary individuals—foremost among whom stands Christ—while the inspiration of the sacred writers is akin to the inspiration of poets. Catholic Tradition is a bare historical fact bearing the marks of the passage of time; hence, both from Tradition and from Holy Scripture, one must discard whatever is not strictly historical—such as external revelation, miracles, and prophecies. The Catholic Church is a community of people sharing the same religious convictions and striving for a common organization—it is, therefore, a human creation subject to the law of evolution; the authority of the Church owes its origin not to divine institution, but to self-awareness and the demands of the times. The holy sacraments are signs—or symbols—that appeal to religious sentiments. Dogmas of faith are also symbols of general Christian truths and mutable conceptual formulas—products of religious sentiment, and thus human creations; they do not contain absolute and immutable truth; —moreover, something may be true in faith yet false in philosophy or history (34).

Also necessary is the divorce of faith from knowledge and the subordination of faith to science—the separation of Church and State and the distinction within every individual between the citizen and the Catholic—the distinction between the historical Church and the Church of faith, and between the historical Sacraments and the Sacraments of faith.

Consistently, modernists demand radical changes in science and discipline in the Church, and especially in democratization. Church and building a building of theology on the foundations of modernist philosophy and history dogmas, while they reject scholastic philosophy.

The most outstanding and most extreme representative of the modernists is Father Alfred Loisy, a former professor. The Catholic Institute in Paris (35), which supposedly wanted to refute the rationalist views of Berlin’s Professor Harnacka, he was concerned about the errors of Protestant exegesis and in his own works. (namely, in the work L’Evangile et l’Eglise) he threw monstrous errors into the world, as example, that the Gospels are not historical books, but rather ethical and philosophical books, and namely, that they express the views of the first Christians on the person and doctrine of Christ, that in the Holy Scripture there are fairy tales, legends, and falsehoods, that Jesus is Christ He did not appear in His own life as the Messiah, but He preached only the imminent coming of the kingdom. God’s kingdom of love and justice, and he took the name “Son of God” only as an honorary title. and that it was only the Greeks who introduced the doctrine of the Incarnate Word, and of the Holy Trinity, that Christ did not establish the Church, nor the Holy Sacraments, and that only the Apostle Paul invented the idea of Redemption, and later other dogmas were added, that revelation is a gradual evolution religious life, on what, apart from Christ, did Moses, Buddha, and Mohammed, — that faith in something about objects and motives is the product of the human spirit (36) etc.

Who doesn’t see that the Catholic Church is turning to nothing in the face of modernism? “religion” dissolves into “unbridled” subjectivism and into some morbid emotionality, something. the necessary result must be naturalism, pantheism, indifferentism, and finally atheism (37). no longer a heresy, i.e. a denial of some dogma, but a “pack of heresy” (38) and religious nihilism.

It was also a visible matter of the Holy Spirit that the supreme guardian and master of revealed truth in the encyclical Pascendi of September 8, 1907, and in other apostolic writings (39) no he only condemned the mistakes of the modernists, but he prescribed remedies, such as the recommendation of neoscholasticism in philosophy, and positive-scholastic methods in theology, greater vigilance in the education of the clergy, introduction, that is, consilium vigilantiae and anti-modernist oath.

Where did modernism come from among Catholic writers? Actually, he is a child of Protestantism and Kant’s philosophy, because he was already Luther, rejecting his teaching. the authority of the Church, based religion on the subjective opinion and conscience of individuals; Kant, by denying the philosophical evidence about the existence of God, opened the gates to agnosticism, and by removing Everything about religion was positive and dogmatic and defending liberated morality. This is, independent of God, who made man the creator of religion. Kant’s Theory (+ 1804) in The attitude towards religion was developed by the Protestants Schleiermacher (+ ‎1834), Ritschl (+ 1889), Augustus Sabatier (+ 1901) and Adolf von Harnack, now living; Kant, and some Catholic writers followed. (40); while others, working in the biblical field, like the already mentioned Loisy Harnack was impressed by the rationalist. We can therefore say that modernism is the offspring of Kantianism and liberal Protestantism. ‎(41);‎ and it gave rise to his pride and the desire for new things, as well as a disregard for the established paths of theology scholasticism.

Footnotes:

33. This statement condemns the text of the anti-modernist oath in these words: “...I completely reject, as heresy, the fabricated theory of the evolution of dogmas, according to which they would pass from one meaning to another—different from the one the Church previously held; I also condemn every error that substitutes philosophical inventions or products of human consciousness for the Divine deposit of faith—which Christ entrusted to His Spouse for faithful preservation—[inventions or products] that, having originated through human effort over time, are supposed to continue perfecting themselves in an indefinite progression.”

34. The following passages from the Oath Against Modernism are relevant here: “I profess that the Church does not hold to what might appear better and more suited to the culture of a given age, but rather holds to the absolute and immutable truth proclaimed by the Apostles from the beginning—a truth which one is not permitted to believe or understand in any other way.” And again: “I also reject the error of those who claim that the faith proposed by the Church can be at odds with history.”

35. Rev. Dr. Czesław Sokołowski, *Alfred Loisy*, Warsaw 1918.

36. See H. Delassus, *Le problème de l’heure présente*, Vol. 1, Chap. LI.

37. “By various paths,” says Pius X in the encyclical *Pascendi*, “the doctrine of the Modernists leads to atheism and the annihilation of all religion. The error of the Protestants took the first step on this path; the error of the Modernists follows; atheism will soon arrive.”

38. Yes, Pius X.

39. Thus, the Syllabus of Pius X (”Lamentabili”) of July 3, 1907; the Apostolic Letters of Pius X of May 6, 1907, and June 2, 1907; the *Motu Proprio* of November 18, 1907, in which he announced *latae sententiae* excommunication against those who dared to defend the views condemned in the decree *Lamentabili*; the encyclical *Pascendi* of March 14, 1908; the encyclical on Saint Charles Borromeo of August 4, 1908; the letter regarding the *Sillon* movement of August 2, 1910; the *Motu Proprio* *Sacrorum antistitum* of September 1, 1910, introducing the anti-modernist oath; and the Apostolic Letter of September 15, 1910. Bishops from Germany, Austria, Galicia, France, and Italy sent addresses to Pius X regarding the encyclical *Pascendi*. Thanksgiving.

40. The authors of the *Programma dei modernisti* explicitly acknowledged Kant as their master.

41. The leading figure of the Italian modernists—Salvatore Minocchi—wrote openly in *Giornale d’Italia*: “Luther was the greatest modernist.”

Specifically, towards the end of the 19th century in France, a school of so-called “immanent apologetics” emerged—spearheaded by Ollé-Laprune, Fonsegrive, Blondel, and Laberthonnière — which, in defending the faith, prioritized internal religious aspirations and the needs of the heart and life over external criteria such as miracles, prophecies, and the like (42). At the same time, E. Le Roy emerged as a proponent of so-called pragmatism, while Loisy, Houtin, and Turmel went too far in their biblical criticism, and Lemire, Naudet, Dabry, Klein, and Sangnier did likewise in their advocacy of Americanism and democracy. This prompted the apostolic writings of Leo XIII on the translation of Holy Scripture (*Providentissimus Deus*, 1893) and on Christian democracy (*Graves de Communi*, 1901), and later the syllabus of Pius X (*Lamentabili*, 1907). When the encyclical *Pascendi* was issued, some proponents of modernism withdrew sincerely, while others did so only outwardly (43); however, Abbé Loisy threw down the gauntlet to the Holy See and incurred a major excommunication (1098)—an act for which the Minister of Education, the Protestant and Freemason Dumergue, awarded him a chair in the history of religion at the Collège de France so that he might continue to serve Freemasonry (44). Modernism also found a defense in publications such as *La Justice Sociale*, *La Vie Catholique*, *Le Bulletin de la Semaine*, and *La Quinzaine*. When Pius X mandated the taking of the anti-modernist oath in the *motu proprio* *Sacrorum Antistitum* of September 1, 1910, a handful of modernist priests sent a manifesto of protest to all the bishops and published it in the periodical *Petit Temps* (45).

In Italy, the modernists were led by—on the one hand—Father Romolo Murri (primarily in the political and social spheres) and—on the other—Father Salvatore Minocchi (mostly in the field of biblical studies). Both, being incorrigible, incurred ecclesiastical censures; it was likely at their instigation that a protest titled *Il programma dei modernisti* was issued in Rome, alongside polemical articles in publications such as *Rinnovamento*, *Nova et Vetera*, *Cultura contemporanea* (Quandrotto), *Battaglie d’oggi*, *Cultura moderna* (Domenico Battaini), *Rivista di Cultura* (Fr. Buonaiuti), *Vita religiosa*, *Bitychnis* (46), *Giornale d’Italia*, and *Corriere della Sera*. Adherents of modernism also included the Barnabite Father Jan Semeria, Father Ernest Rutili, Father De Stefano (editor of the journal *Rivista modernista internazionale*), Professor Genaro Avolno, the novelist Antonio Fogazzaro (47), (+ 1911) Alfieri, Scotti, Maironi, Benedeti, Fracassini, Clementi, Bartoli, and others.

In Germany, calls for reforms in a modernist spirit were already being made in the late 19th century by Kraus and Müller, and especially by Fr. Hermann Schell, a professor at Würzburg (d. 1906); although he submitted to the decree of the Congregation of the Index condemning some of his writings, he did not abandon his errors (48). In the 20th century, the true idea of ​​modernism was propagated by the journals *Das XX. Jahrhundert* (until 1908), *Das neue Jahrhundert*, and *Renaissance*; following the publication of the encyclical *Pascendi*, the clergymen Schnitzer, Koch, Sickenberger, Ziegler, Wieland, Engert, and Philipp Funk spoke out against it, incurring ecclesiastical penalties as a result (49). The aforementioned encyclical was also criticized by Father Albert Ehrhard, a professor in Strasbourg, though he soon retracted his objections. When Pius X mandated the taking of the anti-modernist oath (September 1, 1910), a certain ferment arose within German universities, manifesting itself in articles of protest in the press and parliamentary interpellations.

Pius X exempted priests teaching theology at universities from this oath (December 31, 1910); conversely, the vast majority of theology professors accepted the Pope’s directive with submission.

In Austria, Professor Wahrmund of Innsbruck—patronized by the Jewish press—discredited himself through his attack on the encyclical and on “Roman despotism” in the agitational pamphlet *Katholische Weltanschauung und freie Wissenschaft*, the foolishness of which was aptly exposed by Prof. Smolka in *Przegląd Powszechny* (Vol. 98, p. 1).

Among the English, the ex-Jesuit George Tyrrell proved to be an ardent admirer of modernist theory; not only did he champion the cause in Italian publications, but he died under the ban of excommunication, having never retracted his errors († 1909) (50).

The curse also affected certain Czech priests who gravitated toward anti-ecclesiastical publications such as *Nowy Żywot*, *Bílý Prapor*, and *Rozwój*.

Among Poles, the visionary Wincenty Lutosławski leaned toward a form of modernism tinged with Towianism, though he nonetheless considered himself a good Catholic (cf. Ch. I, p. 10). Father Antoni Wysłouch [Szech]—a former Capuchin and author of shallow yet vitriolic writings—broke with the Church, framing his apostasy as a response to the encyclical *Pascendi* (51). There was also no shortage of lay writers propagating modernist ideas. Specifically, Marian Zdziechowski—a professor at the Jagiellonian University and an admirer of Kantian ideas—came to the defense of Modernism in his brochure *Pestis perniciosissima: ...[in] *Rzecz o współczesnych kierunkach myśli katolickiej* [A Treatise on Contemporary Trends in Catholic Thought] (Warsaw, 1905) (52) and in his work titled *Pessymizm, romantyzm a podstawy chrześcijaństwa* [Pessimism, Romanticism, and the Foundations of Christianity], Vol. 2 (Kraków, 1915) (53)—[he argued] in defense of modernism on the grounds that “no dialectic leads to God,” that theological intellectualism, “in striving to provide a rational justification for faith, is utterly powerless against positivist scientific rationalism,” and that religious truth must therefore be sought along a different path—a path indicated solely by the modernists; hence his erroneous view that “faith is a vision of God—admittedly a very indistinct one, yet a personal vision—rather than a belief based on hearsay.” It is to be regretted that Marian Zdziechowski, who wishes to be a good Catholic, did not read the following decree of the Vatican Council (Sess. III, Can. I): “If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made (that is, from the world) by the natural light of human reason, let him be anathema”—for he would certainly have rejected that Kantian and modernist agnosticism, condemned by the infallible teaching authority of the Church as contrary to Holy Scripture (Wisdom 13:1–9; Romans 1:19), to Catholic tradition, and to the teaching of theologians and philosophers such as Saint Augustine or Thomas Aquinas; instead, retracting his erroneous assertions, he would have subscribed to that point of the Oath Against Modernism prescribed by Pius... X: “I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can certainly be known—and His existence thereby demonstrated—by the natural light of reason through created things; that is, through the visible works of creation, inferring the cause from the effects.” Likewise, had Mr. Zdziechowski borne in mind the words of Christ the Lord—”To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” “Go and teach all nations,” etc.—he would not claim that “there is no place for authority in the Church,” nor would he praise that modernist reform which, rejecting the judgment of the teaching authority, bids one rely instead on the inner conviction of individuals receiving the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Footnotes:

42. Father A. Dobroniewski, op. cit., p. 15.

43. Modernism had even crept into some French seminaries—a fact that largely prompted Pius X to introduce the anti-modernist oath.

44. Loisy is spiraling into an ever-deeper abyss and has already arrived at pantheism.

45. Laurans, the Bishop of Cahors, refuted the allegations made in that proclamation in a pastoral letter dated November 21, 1910. Cf. Rev. Dr. Cz. Sokołowski, op. cit., pp. 120 et seq.

46. The Roman organ of the Baptist and modernist sect.

47. Particularly in the novels *Il Santo* and *Leila*.

48. Reading: ‎Ernest‎ ‎Commer‎ ‎“Herman‎ ‎Schell‎ und‎ ‎der‎ ‎fortschrittliche Kałholicismus“‎ ‎Wien ‎1908‎ ‎i‎ letter from Pius, X, from September 16, 1907.

49. Catholic writers such as Billot, Heiner, Mausbach, Schultes, Braig, Trillmann, Seitz, and others put up a spirited defense against the modernists.

50. Tyrrel was protégéd by Baron Hiigel and Miss Petre Williams.

51. The Russian government did not recognize the *motu proprio* of Pius X dated September 1, 1910, which meant that priests were forbidden to take the anti-modernist oath (Fr. Cz. Sokołowski 1 c. 143).

52. Fr. Jan Roztworowski provided a sharp rebuttal to this brochure in articles published in *Przegląd Powszechny* (volumes 85, 86, and 87 from 1905, and volume 90 from 1906) under the titles “On New Trends in Catholic Thought” and “Liberal Catholicism.”

53. The charges contained in that work were refuted by Rev. Dr. M. Sieniatycki, a professor at the Jagiellonian University, in articles published in *Przegląd Powszechny* (vols. 130, 131, and 132, from 1916) under the title “Modernism in Polish Literature.” The errors of modernism are also present in the work by Rev. Andrzej Huszno titled *Syn człowieczy* [The Son of Man] (Kraków, 1917).

The encyclical *Pascendi* and the *motu proprio* *Sacrorum Antistitum* of September 1, 1910, dealt a mortal blow to Modernism; nevertheless, its most ardent adherents refuse to submit to the Holy See. Although they do not form a separate sect, they rally around an international journal titled *Revue moderniste internationale*—published in Geneva—which propagates their agenda under the banner of *La croisade moderniste*. They aim to educate the younger clergy in these principles; furthermore, they establish associations and institutions (such as the *Krausgesellschaft* in Munich, *Patronage des anciens prêtres* in Locarno, *Exode* and *Association amicale des anciens prêtres catholiques* in Paris, and *Casa del Clero* in Italy) for priests who incur excommunication or abandon celibacy (54). Freethinkers and Freemasons assist them in this endeavor, hoping—albeit in vain—that modernism will serve as a battering ram to shatter Catholicism. The layman writer Plattner aptly described them in the review *Hirtentasche* (No. 23, 1907): “The ancient Romans cast traitors to their country from the Tarpeian Rock into the abyss; traitors to the Roman Catholic Church cast themselves and their followers from the Rock of Peter into the turbulent and boundless sea of ​​error and unbelief” (55). The war of 1914–1919 certainly cured many of the minds of the modernist delusion.

In the anti-religious camp—just as in the 18th century—virtually every discipline was employed during the 19th and 20th centuries to combat the Catholic religion: criticism was used to argue that Christianity originated in Buddhism, Parsism, the Talmud, or Greco-Roman mythology; geology, astronomy, and chronology were invoked to contradict the Bible, particularly the Mosaic account of creation; history was used to cast a glaring light on actual or alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority; in more recent times, the history of religion was employed to demonstrate that Christianity is merely one stage in the evolution of religion—and thus a human construct, mutable and imperfect (56); and, above all, philosophy and the natural sciences were utilized to overturn fundamental truths, such as the existence of God, freedom of the will, spirituality, immortality of the soul.

Medieval philosophy—setting aside the erroneous arguments of John Scotus Eriugena, Abelard, Amalric of Bena, and David of Dinant—was thoroughly Christian in character, reaching its zenith in a thinker of immense stature, unsurpassed to this day: Saint Thomas Aquinas. However, with the advent of Humanism and the Reformation, a rift began to form between philosophy and religion; and although the most eminent philosophical figures of the 17th century—Descartes and Leibniz—acknowledged the necessity of revelation and paid homage to the Christian religion (despite not being free from certain deviations), currents hostile to that religion were simultaneously raising their heads with increasing boldness. Specifically, Giordano Bruno (in the 16th century) and Baruch Spinoza (in the 17th century) revived erroneous pantheistic theories—as did Toland, Collins, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. ...and so on, they oppose Christianity with deism—that is, natural religion—while Hume and Berkeley, developing Locke’s sensualism, arrive at stark skepticism; meanwhile, figures such as Diderot, La Mettrie, Helvétius, Holbach, Lagrange, and Lamarck become proponents of crude materialism and of covert or overt atheism. In the second half of the eighteenth century, philosophy—especially in France—boldly asserted that nothing exists but matter and that accepting the existence of God is the height of absurdity.

Kant (d. 1804) opposes these extravagances of reason, yet—on the other hand—he does a disservice to both reason and religion by defending the existence of God, the freedom of the will, and the immortality of the soul merely as postulates of “practical reason,” and by introducing a truly monstrous distinction between theoretical and practical reason (57); for according to his philosophy, we can know nothing of supersensible things—and thus nothing of God—nor can we prove God’s existence, because our knowledge is confined to the realm of sensory perceptions and subjective forms. Schleiermacher introduced this erroneous theory of the “philosopher of Protestantism” into theology (58), leading to the conclusion that religion is a matter solely of feeling—that all religions are merely different forms of this same feeling and are thus all valid and true, since dogmas do not come into play—and, furthermore, that every person can and should have their own religion.

Moreover, through his theory of “pure *a priori* reasoning,” Kant paved the way for Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel—the creators of idealist pantheism. In metaphysics, this system denies the existence of a personal God who transcends the world (59), regarding all things—whether corporeal or spiritual—as a necessary emanation of the Divine essence; in ethics, it abolishes the moral law and human freedom; in social matters, it leads to communism; and in politics, it legitimizes absolutism by proclaiming, through Hegel: The State is God (60). Pantheism—which is nothing other than masked atheism—spread widely in the early 19th century (61); yet its deceptive grandeur was short-lived, for materialism soon took revenge for these transcendental flights of reason, casting man down from the divine throne upon which pantheism had seated him and reducing him to an animal.

Materialism—or real monism (62)—seized the sceptre in the realm of philosophy in the mid-19th century; its adherents all agree in regarding God, the soul, free will, and religion as old fables unsuited to an age of progress, yet they do not all follow the same paths. Some—such as Moleschott, Büchner, Vogt, and Haeckel—boldly pronouncing judgment on all matters, explain the origin of the world by positing eternal matter and the eternal motion of atoms, and the origin of life through the theory of spontaneous generation, while rejecting a God who exists outside the world and any spiritual being; thus, in place of the truths of sound metaphysics and revealed religion, they set up their own dogmas, which reason and science contradict (63). Their principles were adopted by the leaders of the socialist party, Marx and Engels, who based their sociology upon them.

Others, repelled by the absurdity of the aforementioned dogmas, openly admit that it is difficult to arrive at the truth in many matters and therefore content themselves with negative conclusions; *ignorabimus*—we shall not know the truth regarding the origin of things and of life—such is the avowal of Du Bois-Reymond.

Materialism, despite its inner emptiness, has found many adherents and left its mark on intellectual, moral, and social life; for it serves as a welcome excuse for those who abandon Christian faith and ethics. In the realm of knowledge, it has brought true philosophy into contempt while taking the natural sciences under its special wing—only to unjustly use them as a battering ram to shatter the walls of metaphysics and religion.

It was aided in this by the theory of evolution and transformism—known as Darwinism after its chief proponent, Charles Darwin—which contains a grain of truth but also many erroneous hypotheses, such as when it derives man from the ape or posits a universe without God (64).

Footnotes:

54. To this end, a congress of modernists was held in Naples in 1913.

55. Father Dobroniewski, Vol. 1, p. 146.

56. So-called congresses of religions are held with this idea in mind.

57. Ed. von Hartmann said of Kant that in no human mind had stronger opposites combined than in Kant’s brain. (Cited by Dr. Mausbach in *Religion, Christentum, Kirche*, Vol. I, 1912, p. 38).

58. Rev. Dr. Jan Żukowski, *Religion and the Desire for Happiness*, Lwów 1909, pp. 80 ff.

59. Hegel’s God is an Idea that brings the world forth from itself and, together with the world, constitutes the Absolute, yet only attains self-awareness in man.

60. Works of Hegel, Vol. VII, p. 320, 1840 edition.

61. In France, he was most notably championed by Victor Cousin—and to some extent by Saint-Simon; in Italy, by De Sanctis, Vera, Spaventa, and Del Zio; and in Poland, by Trentowski, August Cieszkowski, and Libelt. However, the Polish pantheists strove to “baptize Hegel”—that is, to crown his system with the concept of a personal God. See: X. Morawski (S.J.), *Filozofia i jej zadanie* [Philosophy and Its Task], 2nd ed., Ch. VI; and Alb. Stöckl, *Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie* (Mainz, 1870).

62. The principle of monism is the identity of God and the world, of physical and mental being. In monism, nature absorbs God—who is merely another name for nature—whereas in pantheism, God absorbs nature, which is an emanation of God.

63. Rev. Morawski, *Philosophy and Its Task* (Chapters VII, VIII, IX) — Albert Stöckl, *Der Materialismus* etc. (Mainz, 1877) — F. Lange, *Geschichte des Materialismus und Kritik seiner Bedeutung in der Gegenwart* (1866; Polish translation, Warsaw, 1881). Cf. Rev. Idzi Radziszewski, *The Credo of a Modern Physiologist (E. Cyon)*, p. 32 et seq.; by the same author, *Theology and the Natural Sciences* (Włocławek, 1910).

64. The naturalist El. Cyon stated regarding Charles Darwin’s theory of transformism and doctrine of origin that they could not even lay claim to the status of a mere scientific hypothesis (*Dieu et science*, Paris 1912, p. 298). More recently, the Berlin professor O. Hertwig—one of the most distinguished biologists—spoke out against Darwin’s theory in his work *Das Werden der Organismen: eine Widerlegung von Darwins Zufallstheorie* (Jena, 1916), despite having previously been a proponent of Darwinism as a student of Haeckel. Haeckel, for his part, termed Darwin’s theory “heavy monist artillery against Christianity”; yet that artillery was shattered, as attested by the monist proponent Artur Drews: “Gone is the time when naturalists triumphed in the belief that they had found in Darwinism the key to solving the riddle of how nature—from humble beginnings and without the interplay of objective purposes—evolved into its present-day forms and shapes” (cf. Seitz, loc. cit., 409).

The worldview of Darwin, Büchner, and Haeckel soon gained ground, as “the prospect of dethroning the Creator of the world and the hope of freeing themselves from religion and moral restraints must have appealed to the benighted masses” (65). Moreover, materialism succeeded in luring a number of shallow-thinking naturalists into its camp, while other defenders of science refuted its claims (66); One of the more profound researchers, the famous chemist Liebig, described the views of contemporary materialists regarding nature as “the opinions of dilettantes, whom the ignorant and gullible public believes—just as it recently believed in wandering, writing, and speaking tables, and saw a special power in old wood” (67). Other natural scientists of equal renown—such as Bernard, Pasteur, and Cyon—rightly argue that a conflict between the natural sciences and religion is impossible, since “experimental science, in its inquiries, does not delve into the inner essence of things, their origin, or their ultimate purpose” (Pasteur).

A materialistic worldview and outlook on life inevitably led to pessimism—a sentiment that found expression in the anti-religious philosophies of Schopenhauer and Eduard von Hartmann (*Philosophie des Unbewussten*) and was also reflected in many works of poetry and fiction during the 19th century. (68)

Positivism is closely related to materialism; it regards Auguste Comte—author of the work *Cours de philosophie positive* (1830)—as its spiritual father. This system recognizes only empirical facts as “positive”—that is, as actually existing—and confines itself solely to the exact sciences (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology); meanwhile, it excludes questions regarding God and the soul—namely theology and metaphysics—from the realm of human knowledge. Thus, under the guise of agnosticism, it effectively propounds atheism—a particularly pernicious form of it, given that it is concealed and haughtily rejects any discussion (69). Experience itself belies positivism; for beyond the senses, which operate within the realm of phenomena, we possess reason, which apprehends immaterial beings as well as the existence of God and the necessity of religion. Since man cannot do without religion, Comte advocated the cult of the “Great Being” (*Grand Être*)—that is, humanity, or rather great individuals—amounting to a form of fetishism. He was the creator of the “religion of humanity,” the aim of which, in his words, is “the reorganization of society without God or king, guided solely by positive reason and a genuine sense of social solidarity, in both private and public life.” He was the creator of the “Religion of Humanity,” the aim of which—in his own words—is the “reorganization of society without God or king, guided solely by positive reason and a genuine social sense, in both private and public life.” Such a religion is also the ideal of Freemasonry; indeed, upon Littré’s admission to the lodge, Brother Jules Ferry was able to say: “There has always existed an intrinsic, unconscious affinity between Freemasonry and Positivism.”

Adherents of Comte and Darwin introduced their doctrines into ethics (the independent morality of Littré and Herbert Spencer), criminal law (Ferri and Lombroso), history (Thomas Buckle), literary and historical criticism (Hippolyte Taine), and literature (Émile Zola) (70); yet the heyday of Positivism had already passed.

As previously mentioned, around 1870, the Warsaw Positivists—led by Aleksander Świętochowski—caused quite a stir; some of them were captivated by the intoxicating...

...exact sciences (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology); meanwhile, it excludes questions regarding God and the soul—that is, theology and metaphysics—from the realm of human knowledge, thereby proclaiming—under the guise of agnosticism—what is effectively atheism: a particularly insidious form of it, as it is concealed and arrogantly rejects any discussion (71). Experience itself belies Positivism; for beyond the senses, which operate within the realm of phenomena, we possess reason, which apprehends immaterial entities, as well as the existence of God and the necessity of religion. Since man cannot do without religion, Comte advocated the cult of the “Great Being” (*Grand Être*) of humanity—or rather, of great men—and thus a form of fetishism. He was the creator of the “Religion of Humanity,” the aim of which, in his own words, is “the reorganization of society without God or king, guided solely by positive reason and a genuine social consciousness, in both private and public life.” Such a religion is also the ideal of Freemasonry; hence, upon Littré’s admission to the lodge, Brother Jules Ferry could say: “Between Freemasonry and Positivism, there has always existed an intrinsic, unconscious affinity.”

Adherents of Comte and Darwin introduced their doctrines into ethics (the independent morality of Littré and Herbert Spencer), criminal law (Ferri and Lombroso), history (Thomas Buckle), literary and historical criticism (Hippolyte Taine), and literature (Émile Zola) (72); yet the heyday of positivism had already passed.

As previously mentioned, around 1870, the Warsaw Positivists—led by Aleksander Świętochowski—stirred up a great deal of commotion; some of them were captivated by the philosophy of Nietzsche, which was as intoxicating as strong wine (73). This notorious *fin de siècle* figure branded Christianity “humanity’s greatest misfortune” and dismissed all religion as a “harmful narcotic and pernicious hypnosis”; in its place, he advocated for the unbridled enjoyment of life, the constant renewal of the world, and the cult of the “Übermensch” (Superman)—a figure for whom all things exist and whom no bonds constrain. In his boundless arrogance, Nietzsche sought to be a god to himself and to others, yet he died a madman, repeatedly muttering “I am stupid” before his death (d. August 25, 1900). The words “Nothing is true, everything is permitted” are also his; it is no wonder, then, that he championed arrogance, debauchery, selfishness, and cruelty.

In recent times, “monism” has once again sought to dominate philosophy and the natural sciences; by adopting as dogma the absolute regularity, unity, and quasi-”divinity” of nature, it removes the personal God who exists beyond the world, or rather identifies God with the world, spirit with matter, free will with necessity, and good with evil. — and it seeks to replace religion with a striving for culture. Monism takes various forms: alongside the “real” (i.e., materialist) monism of Ernst Haeckel (74)—now largely discredited—there exists the energetic monism of Wilhelm Ostwald, which posits “physical energy”—indestructible yet constantly changing—as the foundation of the physical world in place of matter and the mechanical motion of atoms, while attributing spiritual phenomena to “nerve energy”; there is also identity monism, which reduces nature and spirit—physical and psychic entities running in parallel—to a single substance; and, closely related to this, the spiritualist monism of Eduard von Hartmann (75), which regards the “Unconscious” spirit as the substance of the world—a spirit that attains consciousness in man, thereby realizing its own wretchedness and folly.

Footnotes:

65. ‎Cyon‎ ‎1‎ ‎c.‎ ‎295.

66. What scientific value the arguments of the materialists have, we can see from this that the most accurate naturalists have declared against them, such as Newton, Herschel, Cuvier, Linne, Galvani, in the 18th century, in the 19th century, and Quatrefages, Moigno, Chevreul, Berzelius, Cl., Bernard, Pasteur, Cauchy, Biot, Schónlein, Hertz, Maxwell, Bischof, Pfaff, Schwann, Ehrenburg, Martius, Romanes, Volkmann, Volkmann Humphry, Davy, Chalmers, Faraday, Bretwster, Mivart, Murchison, Prichard, Burmeister, Agassiz, And. And. ‎Rudolf‎ ‎Wagner,‎ K. ‎Bauer,‎ Osw.‎ ‎Heer, ‎Liebig, ‎Fr. Quenstedt,‎ ‎J.‎Hyrtl,‎J.‎Muller,‎Hertwig,‎Virchow,‎van‎ der‎Hoeven, Madler, J. R. Mayer, Baer, ​​Oskar Fraas, Loenhard, Fabri, Secchi, Wasmann, Cyon ‎William ‎Thomson,‎(lord ‎Calvin ‎f‎ ‎1907)‎Charles Lyell,‎i.t.p.

67. ‎”Vortrage‎ ‎uber‎ ‎unorganische‎ ‎Natur‎ ‎und‎ ‎organisches‎ ‎Leben“.

68. Among our writers, Kazimierz Tetmajer and others sang in this vein.

69. Cf. Albert Stöckl, *Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie* (Mainz, 1870), p. 845 et seq. — X. St. Pawlicki, “Studia nad pozytywizmem” [Studies on Positivism] in *Przegląd Polski*, Year XIX, Issue IX. — Janet, *La philosophie contemporaine*.

70. Teodor Jeske-Choiński, Part 1, p. 12.

71. Cf. Alb. Stöckl, *Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie*, Mainz 1870, p. 845 sq. — X. St. Pawlicki, “Studia nad pozytywizmem” [Studies on Positivism] in *Przegląd Polski*, Year XIX, Issue IX. — Janet, *La philosophie contemporaine*.

72. Teodor ‎Jeske-Choiński ‎1‎ ‎c.‎ ‎page‎ ‎12.

73. Nietzsche came from the Germanized Polish Niecki family.

74. Ernst Haeckel—who was proven to have committed fraud in his scientific research—founded the atheistic “Monistenbund” in 1906; in 1910, he renounced Protestantism and openly declared himself an atheist. His book *Die Welträtsel* (The Riddle of the Universe) undermined the faith of both the educated and the uneducated; the socialist Bebel called it the “worker’s gospel.” On the other hand, the writer Paulsen remarked: “Reading this work, I blushed with shame that the culture and philosophy of our times stand at such a low level,” while Chamberto described the book as “mythology of the worst kind.”

75. Shortly before his death, Eduard von Hartmann made the following admission: “The entire world is weary of sterile agnosticism, and all the individual branches of philosophy are beginning to realize that they have wandered into blind alleys from which only metaphysics can lead them out” (*Deutschland*, Vol. 1 (1903), p. 71).

Monism of the first and second kind explicitly rules out the existence of God and embraces atheism; monism of the third and fourth kind speaks of the All-Spirit, All-Being, and All-Will, leading directly to pantheism—and through pantheism to atheism, and, in terms of ethics, to nihilism (76). There are also other shades of monism—according to Arthur Drews, there are fourteen of them—and all of them oppose the Christian worldview (77). Skepticism—which calls everything into question—also proved to be an enemy of Catholic truth; this was especially the case given the luster lent to it by Ernest Renan, a highly skilled sophist who, believing in nothing and mocking everything, did not hesitate to claim that Christ was a dreamer, that Christianity rests on a lie, and that the true deity of the world is the sun.

Subjective idealism also leads to skepticism; in more recent times, this philosophy has been pursued—following in the footsteps of Berkeley, Hume, and Fichte—by authors such as B. W. Schuppe, R. von Schubert, H. Cornelius, M. Ververn, and others (78).

As previously mentioned, certain Catholic scholars, having embraced the ideas of Kant, Comte, Spencer, and the like, went astray in their philosophical and theological works—a path that gave rise to modernism. Prominent among these erroneous trends is agnosticism, which confines reason to the realm of phenomena while denying it the capacity to know supersensible realities—including the existence of God—thereby doing a disservice to both reason and religion.

Linked to agnosticism is pragmatism (79), which asserts that religious and moral truths come to us not from without but from within—from our consciousness, or what is known as immanence—and from our experience, arising as practical outcomes of the needs of our spirit and the desires of our heart; it regards practical utility as the criterion of truth.

Alongside these currents, evolutionism predominates among many contemporary philosophers; it subjects the material and spiritual worlds—religion included—to a process of continuous development, implying that there are no absolute or immutable truths, but only relative truths (relativism) and subjective ones (symbolism).

Rightly did Pius X, in the encyclical *Pascendi*, condemn these aberrations, while recommending — following the example of Leo XIII—the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas as the only safe foundation “upon which the edifice of theology must be built.” Indeed, following the publication of Leo XIII’s famous encyclical *Aeterni Patris* in 1879, Neo-Thomist or Neo-Scholastic philosophy flourished remarkably and paid fresh tribute to Catholic truth (80).

Let us now turn our attention to the enemies of the Catholic Church in the realms of religious, political, and social life.

In times of unbelief, superstition (81) and pseudo-mysticism proliferate, stemming from the fact that man must somehow satisfy the need for faith rooted in the depths of the soul. We witnessed this in the 18th century, when charlatans such as Mesmer, the Count of Saint-Germain, Count Cagliostro (properly named Balsamo), and others deceived many gullible members of the upper class. We saw this in the 19th century as well; hence the belief in the revelations of Michel Vintras (82), Davide Lazzaretti (83), the Milanese Romano—who styled himself the “second savior of the world”—and others; hence, too, the fascination with inquiries into animal magnetism and hypnotism (84); hence the gravitation toward Buddhism, magic, spiritism, theosophy, and occultism; hence the cult of Satan, appearing in the writings of certain poets as well as in certain anti-religious journals (for example, *Il Lucifero*, *Ateo*), and sometimes even in public processions (85).

At the beginning of the 20th century, we also witnessed manifestations of such phenomena as spiritualism, faith healing (86), the quasi-magical influence exerted by figures like John of Kronstadt and Grigori Rasputin in Russia, and astrology—a practice that spread from England (where the “Raphael’s Astronomical Ephemeris of the Planets’ Places” association was formed) to other countries (87).

Polish society was not immune to such aberrations either; notably, Towianism emerged in the 19th century, while Mariavitism (or Kozłowitism) appeared in the 20th—both as distinctly Polish phenomena. The founder of Towianism was Andrzej Towiański, a Lithuanian nobleman born on January 1, 1799, in Antoszwińcie near Vilnius, and who died on May 13, 1878, in Zurich. He acquired religious sentiments early on from his devout mother, yet he was not immune to the impulses of ambition; for he dreamed of becoming greater and more famous than Napoleon—a figure for whom, much like Kościuszko and Tsar Alexander I, he held extraordinary reverence. As a student at the Vilnius gymnasium and university, he readily devoted himself to prayer and the reveries of an exalted imagination; at that time, he believed he heard inner voices, received revelations, and conversed with spirits. He undoubtedly fell under the sway of the current pseudo-mysticism known as Saint-Martinism—fashionable in Russia during the reign of Alexander I—and the influences of Swedenborgianism, Freemasonry, magnetism, and Slavophilism are also evident in his outlook. His favorite reading material included the Holy Scriptures—which were being disseminated in Lithuania at the time by the Protestant Bible Society—as well as Thomas à Kempis’s *The Imitation of Christ*; on the other hand, his faith wavered because he was scandalized by certain priests who did not live according to Christ’s teachings, leading him to conclude that the Catholic Church needed renewal and that this renewal might originate from someone standing outside the Church.

Regarding the national cause, Towiański openly condemned the November Uprising, portraying the resulting severe defeats and persecutions as divine punishment for the nation’s betrayal of the mission entrusted to it by God.

In 1830, he married Karolina Maksówna, who was also prone to quasi-mystical visions; subsequently... After leaving Vilnius, where he had served as a court official since 1818, he settled on his family estate to devote himself to farming and to the moral upliftment of the common people—for whom he indeed accomplished much good. Immersing himself in the Book of Revelation, he convinced both himself and a handful of his followers—specifically Ferdynand Gutt and Wincenty Wańkowicz—that the time had come for him to fulfill a mission ordained by God and to step forward as a reformer not merely of his own nation but of all humanity; or, as he himself put it, that the moment had arrived for the “realization of the Word.”

Footnotes:

76. Read: Dr. Anton Anton Seitz Natiirliche Religionsbegriindung S. 27 l-sq.

77. Cf. Mausbach, I, ch. 14, pp. 127 ff. The principles of monism are currently being propagated by Pastor Heydorn, Arthur Drews, Dr. Ostwald, and Dr. Horneffer, and in our country by Aug. Wróblewski. At the 1912 monist congress in Magdeburg, it was decided to influence the education of youth in this spirit and even to establish “monist monasteries.” “People’s lodges” are also being formed in Germany.

78. See Mausbach 1 sq. 28 sq.

79. Proponents of pragmatism—also known as humanism, voluntarism, the “new philosophy,” or the philosophy of immanence—include the Americans Sanders Peirce and William James; the Englishmen Schiller and Tyrrell; the Frenchmen Bergson, Le Roy, and Blondel; and the Italians Papini and Semeria. Pragmatism mistakes the effect for the cause and overlooks the fact that utility is the consequence, not the cause, of religious truth; for religion is not true because it is useful, but rather useful because it is true. Defenders of pragmatism also easily drift toward ontologism and modernism, and even toward pantheism. Prominent writers who fell into the vortex of these errors include Bergson—whose major works were condemned by the Congregation of the Index in a decree dated June 1, 1914—and Le Roy, a lycée professor in Versailles who followed Spinoza.

80. The most prominent representative of neo-scholastic philosophy today is Désiré Mercier, Archbishop of Mechelen and—since 1907—a cardinal. Among Polish scholars working productively in the field of Christian philosophy are Fr. Prof. Stefan Pawlicki (d. 1916), Fr. Prof. Kazimierz Wais, Fr. Prof. Franciszek Gabryl (d. 1913), Fr. Rector Idzi Radziszewski, and others. Before them, Fr. Marian Morawski, S.J. (d. 1901), had already distinguished himself.

81. They claim that in 1913 there were 35,000 fortune tellers, soothsayers, astrologers, and the like in Paris.

82. After 1840, Michał Vintras proclaimed the “Kingdom of the Holy Spirit” in France, based on revelations allegedly received from Saint Michael and the Blessed Virgin.

83. As the “new messiah and prince of the redeemed peoples,” David Lazaretti proclaimed an equal division of land and founded a new church, until he lost his life in a clash with the army.

84. Cf. by the same author: *Pastoral Medicine*, Ch. XII: “On Hypnotism”.

85. Cf. the same author’s *Pius IX and Poland*, Ch. X (1914).

86. So-called Christian Science is a theosophical sect founded in America by Mary Eddy (Mother Mary, d. 1906). By reviving old pantheistic errors, this sect introduces a “mental method” of healing diseases through “thought filled with divine truth” and prayer—though in reality, it employs magnetism and suggestion. Naturally, this involves a great deal of humbug and fraud—practices for which “miracle healers” were imprisoned in Berlin.

87. In 1916, this fraud was exposed and punished in Munich. The aforementioned association had its own publications in Germany, such as *Astrologische Rundschau* and *Astrologische Blätter*.

In this spirit, he undertook a journey to St. Petersburg in 1832 and to Dresden in 1835; in 1837, he moved abroad permanently, visiting Napoleonic battlefields with great reverence and arriving in Paris just as the remains of the Emperor—whom he idolized—were being brought back from Saint Helena. Seeking to lend the weight of a prominent figure to his cause, he turned first to Archbishop Dunin in Poznań and then to General Skrzynecki in Brussels. The archbishop did not wish to listen any longer to his discourses on the transmigration of souls; Skrzynecki, for his part, had initially seemed to believe in the “Master”—whom he had met in Dresden and from whom he had received, as a gift, a text titled *Biesiada* [The Feast], regarding it almost as a new gospel—but upon learning that Towiański had not gone to confession for twenty years, and failing to persuade him to do so, he severed all ties with him. (89)

Towiański therefore resolved to cast his net for Adam Mickiewicz, whose circumstances were well known to him from the accounts of Antoni Edward Odyniec and his own brother-in-law, Dr. Vautt. Specifically, he knew that our national bard possessed a noble heart and deep religious feeling, yet also a strong inclination toward mysticism—derived from reading the writings of Saint-Martin; that since 1833, he had striven—alongside Jański, Plater, Koźmian, Witwicki, Kajsiewicz, Semenenko, and others—to uplift the religious spirit among the émigrés; and, furthermore, that he was in a state of spiritual depression due to the exhaustion of his lectures

at the Collège de France, longing for his homeland, the mental illness his wife suffered after every childbirth, and distressing financial hardship. Thus, by miraculously curing Mickiewicz’s wife—an act accomplished through... Through his suggestions, his extolling of the man as a “master of the word” and a “prophet of the heart”—and, above all, his promise of Poland’s resurrection and rebirth—he so captivated the mind of the author of *Forefathers’ Eve* and *The Books of the Polish Nation and of the Polish Pilgrimage* that the poet became his ardent follower. Yet, from that moment on, the bard’s inspiration ceased, and the poet’s lute fell silent. Having also won over two of Mickiewicz’s friends—Antoni Górecki and Izydor Sobański — Towiański was able to consecrate these three men as apostles of the “Cause of God” and proclaim that, on August 7, 1841, at 10 a.m., “the beginning of this Cause had been made.”

Following a series of “secular” spiritual exercises conducted with Mickiewicz at the latter’s summer residence, Towiański delivered a lengthy address to over two hundred émigrés at Notre Dame Cathedral on September 27, 1841—after the singing of the *Veni Creator* and a Mass during which he and Mickiewicz had received Holy Communion. In this speech, he declared: “I come to make you aware that soon all our sufferings will cease, and all the sufferings of humanity stemming from violence and material force will pass away; the Gospel will fully establish its reign, shining forth not merely in words and forms but in the hearts of all, and peoples will find solace in freedom.” When the Archbishop of Paris, Denis Affre, forbade Towiański from making public appearances in churches, the latter began holding Sunday lectures—initially at Mickiewicz’s apartment and later at his own home in Nanterre—which were open to anyone who wished to attend. Mickiewicz became deeply committed to the belief in “Poland’s messianic mission” and frequently propagated this idea, whether from his chair at the Collège de France or in separate books (*L’Église officielle et le Messianisme* and *L’Église et le Messie*). Through his eloquence and gravitas, he succeeded in gathering a number of adherents and forming a so-called “circle” (90); its members, having listened to the lofty speeches of Mickiewicz—who appeared to them like a high priest—would fervently pray for the success of “God’s cause” and even confess their sins to one another. In his pamphlet *The Three Bards and the Church*, Zygmunt Szczęsny Feliński noted that Antoni Górecki, having parted ways with the Master, introduced a new liturgy within his own circle; this practice involved inviting impoverished émigrés to dinner and—following the spiritual repast—reciting the words of consecration over the bread and distributing it to his kneeling followers, after which he did the same with the wine.

Juliusz Słowacki, author of *King-Spirit*, followed Mickiewicz but later broke ties with the master; Zygmunt Krasiński, on the other hand, always kept his distance from Towiański — referring to him merely as a “magician and powerful mesmerist”—though traces of Towianist ideas can be found in his poetry. Towiański won over a number of followers with the promise of Poland’s imminent resurrection; according to Father Kajsiewicz, they embraced this “divine cause” in good faith, knowing almost nothing about the new dogmas. Towiański drove them only to prayer and the “cultivation of the spirit”; in this regard, many recalled the existence of God and the possession of a soul, yet all of this was done in a feverish, convulsive, and morbid manner.

On the other hand, firm opposition to the “Master” came not only from the Resurrectionist Fathers but also from certain lay émigrés—most notably Stefan Witwicki, who described Towiański as “a dreamer succumbing to the malady of visionary delusion, harboring in his heart not our holy faith but a fanciful one of his own making, woven from various errors both old and new.” A conversation held in Brussels with Fr. Piotr Semenenko played a particularly significant role in unmasking the Master; following it, Semenenko declared that Towiański was a cunning charlatan (91). As his promises regarding Poland failed to materialize, the number of adherents to the “Circle”—led by General Karol Różycki after Mickiewicz—dwindled year by year. Conversely, through the efforts of the Towiański follower Father Edward Duński, a group of the “Master’s” devotees emerged in Italy, a region where revolutionary currents had stirred up hostility toward the Pope and the Church. One of the most ardent among them was Tancredi Canonico, who described the Master’s life and teachings in his work *Andrea Tozuianski* and won over several prominent figures—including Archbishop Puecher Passavalli and the novelist Fogazzaro—to the cause, even as the Bishop of Cuneo condemned Towiański’s teachings as heretical in a pastoral letter dated October 12, 1857.

Footnotes:

88. See also the same author’s *Pius IX and Poland*, Chapter X, where he writes at greater length about Towianism and Adam Mickiewicz as a follower of Towiański.

89. Mickiewicz later attempted to “convert” General Skrzynecki, but in response to his letter of March 23, 1842, he received a lengthy reply (dated April 3, 1842) containing the following words: “Andrzej [Towiański] belongs to the ranks of those false mystics—or dreamers—one might encounter in Lutheranism or in the annals of history...! He eventually reached the point of disbelieving in the Divinity of Christ... It is certain that he was never truly within the fold of the Church... His wife even suspects him of charlatanism—though I misspoke; I am not certain of that.” (Wł. Mickiewicz, *Adam Mickiewicz’s Involvement in the Cause of Andrzej Towiański*, Vol. II, p. 167).

90. Later, under the influence of Mickiewicz, a French “Circle” was also formed.

91. See: *Przegląd Poznański*, 1858, issue 2; Fr. Paweł Smolikowski, *Historia Zgromadzenia Zmartwychwstania Pańskiego* [History of the Congregation of the Resurrection], Vol. IV, p. 101 et seq.

What, then, was Towiański’s doctrine? He never wrote it down himself, despite a promise made to the émigrés; we possess only a vague and convoluted text of his titled *Biesiada* [The Feast]—given to General Skrzynecki in 1841—which Father Semenenko critically analyzed in 1850 in the short work *Towiański et sa doctrine*. Despite the ambiguities and evasions frequently employed by the Master, it is not difficult to demonstrate that his teaching contains dogmatic errors which—according to the aforementioned work by Fr. Semenenko and the Italian publication *L’apologista*—can be summarized in the following propositions: God is a universal light into which particular lights merge (Manichaeism). The creation of the world occurs in such a way that God draws beings forth from some pre-existing raw matter, ascending from the impurities of a lower operation ever higher toward God (Gnosticism). The spirit of hell—that is, base spirits—reigns on earth (Manichaeism). There is no original sin, and human nature is not corrupted (Pelagianism). Redemption came about in this way: “Jesus Christ, through His holiness, brought down a pillar of light and with it dispelled the thick darkness of the earth.” In this matter, He is the primary agent after God; next comes the Cherubim, then Napoleon — “penultimate in the holy pillar”—and finally Towiański was sent to “ignite the chosen nations with the fire of holy love.” There is no Resurrection, just as Christ did not rise from the dead (Gnosticism). Belief in the Last Judgment, as well as in eternal rewards and punishments, collapses if souls—after departing their bodies—can return to earth and reunite with a body to atone for their sins (metempsychosis, Buddhism). The Catholic Church—termed the “official church” by Towiański—had sufficed in those ages when humanity was in its infancy, but in the current era of continuous progress, it betrays its mission; instead, there exists an “inner church” which, in accordance with Christ’s will, is meant to be realized within each soul—hence, one must turn not to the official Church or the Apostolic See, but directly to Christ (Protestantism, Marianitism); yet, on the other hand, Towiański did not leave the “official” Church nor did he form a separate sect.

Regarding ethical principles, Towiański particularly advocated the exaltation of the spirit—a purpose served by prayer. He did not reject the Holy Sacraments but ascribed a different meaning to them; for in his view, everything hinged on stirring the soul toward God—an act that draws down a column of holy spirits and, consequently, grace. He constantly appealed to emotion and the will, such that he was not unjustly counted among the precursors of modernism.

As for the means of sanctification, Towiański also recommended gazing at the image of Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn, venerating the white cross (depicted without the figure of Christ), singing the march of the “holy cause,” and undertaking pilgrimages to holy sites—including the battlefield of Waterloo—as well as observing a fast, understood as abstaining from actions, conversations, and thoughts not in harmony with the “holy cause.”

Viewing himself as a reformer of humanity, he singled out three nations—the Israelites, the Poles, and the French—as being called upon to fulfill “God’s cause,” provided they all embraced the spirit of Napoleon. He also propagated the idea of ​​Polish messianism—a concept further developed by Mickiewicz—while reconciling it with Pan-Slavic utopias and a keen sympathy for Russia; he expressed this in a letter to Tsar Nicholas I (dated August 15, 1844), in which he humbly implored the monarch to embrace “God’s cause” and implement it among the Slavic peoples. This letter, as well as the loyal address sent to Alexander II by the Towiańczyk movement on January 8, 1857, deeply outraged patriots.

When evaluating Towiański’s teachings from a dogmatic standpoint, one must conclude that they constitute a hodgepodge of various heretical errors. It is hardly surprising, then, that the Congregation of the Index condemned two of his writings—namely, *Biesiada* (92) and the proclamation titled *Do rodaków, tułacz kończący tułactwo* (93)—as well as the aforementioned major books by Mickiewicz (94) and the writings of the Towianist Karol Różycki (95), on the grounds that they contained erroneous propositions.

Nevertheless, Towiański considered himself a good Catholic, even though he did not submit to the ruling of the Holy See. Did he act in good faith? Some writers surmise as much, arguing that he was not a sectarian in the strict sense of the word, but rather a visionary who succumbed pathologically to his own delusions—or what is known as autosuggestion (96)—a state that can sometimes lead to a form of mania crystallized into a *fixe idée*. Undoubtedly, one observes in Towiański a morbid inclination toward mysticism; yet, on the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that he acted with calculation and cunning—that in his speeches he carefully weighed every circumstance, often concealing his thoughts or cloaking them in mystery—and that, regarding his doctrine, he faced opposition not only from figures such as Archbishop Dunin and General... Skrzynecki, Fr. Semenenko, and Pius IX’s nuncio Bovieri offered him explanations and warnings, and he even elicited explicit rulings from the Holy See, yet he did not abandon his errors (97) and persisted in his obstinacy until death. Is this how a person of good faith and good will acts? Meanwhile, there are writers who hold Towiański and Towianism in high regard, completely overlooking—or even disregarding—his attitude toward the Church and Catholic dogmas. Moreover, the author of the booklet *Służba narodowa w sprawie Andrzeja Towiańskiego* [National Service in the Cause of Andrzej Towiański] ranks him among the Church’s holy mystics, forgetting that such mystics were orthodox and utterly obedient sons or daughters of the Church, whereas Towiański refused to acknowledge the authority of the Holy See, propagated erroneous views, and advocated for some sort of “inner church.” (98)

We must term his actions a harmful delusion, and Towianism one of the national calamities (99).

A second delusion—known as Mariavitism, *mankietnictwo*, or *kozłowityzm*—which spread throughout the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, originated with Feliksa Magdalena (known in the Third Order as Maria Franciszka) Kozłowska, the owner of a liturgical vestment workshop in Płock (born in 1864). This shrewd and hypocritical woman—who had experienced various vicissitudes in her youth and whose immoral conduct was proven before the Warsaw court in May 1906—(100) first led (in 1887) a secret association of Third Order Franciscans (specifically, the Poor Clares), known as the “Mariavites,” with the knowledge of Fr. Honorat Kośmiński—a Capuchin friar from Nowe Miasto (d. 1916) who had established secret religious congregations, both male and female, to uplift the religious spirit of Polish society. Wishing also to stir up a greater ascetic movement among the clergy, he confided his intentions to Kozłowska (101); she, in turn, citing direct divine revelations, began in 1893 to proclaim that God had called upon her to found an order of Mariavite priests and Mariavite nuns, in order to regenerate the “corrupt Polish clergy” and to spread devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady of Perpetual Help throughout Polish society.

Indeed, under her leadership, the “Congregation of Mariavite Priests” was established in 1893; headquartered in Płock, it was governed by the First Rule of Saint Francis and observed the three religious vows. These priests—also known as *mankietniki* (102) due to the black cuffs they habitually wore—gained considerable popularity through outward signs of asceticism and by encouraging everyone to practice frequent Holy Communion, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and devotion to Our Lady of Perpetual Help; even diocesan authorities, particularly Father Petrykowski (the administrator of Płock), viewed them favorably. Among them were men of good will who sincerely desired to restore priestly discipline—which had become lax in places, largely due to the government—yet some lacked deep theological knowledge, while others lacked humility. Alongside the two religious congregations, a tertiary association for men and women and a confraternity of adorers of the Most Blessed Sacrament were established; all of this was led by Maria Franciszka Kozłowska.

Having broken ties with Father Honorat, this religious “Mother” began to boldly present herself as a reformer of the Polish clergy and to proclaim visions she allegedly received from Christ the Lord. Some of the Mariavite priests believed these deceptions, while others feigned belief; emerging at their forefront was Father Jan Michał Kowalski—pastor in Sobótka, in the Archdiocese of Warsaw, and an ambitious, audacious man whom the “brethren” elected “General” in 1904. It was he who—as is claimed—colluded with the apostate and renegade Skrochowski (author of vile anti-Catholic pamphlets who, following his apostasy, served as a government railway inspector in the Kingdom of Poland) to establish a sort of Polish national church under government protection; little wonder, then, that the government supported the Mariavite movement from the outset. A document exists in which Kowalski and Skolimowski, on behalf of the Mariavites, pledged absolute loyalty and obedience to the monarch and the government, as well as a commitment to oppose any agitation for national patriotism (103).

When Bishop Jerzy Szembek ascended to the See of Płock and—having been warned, it is claimed, by Father Honorat—saw through the machinations of the Mariavites (104), he referred the matter to the Apostolic See; the Holy Office (Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition) subsequently issued a decree on September 4, 1904, dissolving the Mariavite congregation, declaring Kozłowska’s visions to be delusions, and ordering her removal from the position of superior over both the women and the priests.

At the feet of Pius X, the Mariavites pledged to reform and ostensibly submitted to the decree of the Holy Inquisition; meanwhile, however, through a display of feigned piety, the refusal to accept stole fees (105), vehement denunciations of “bad priests”—even from the pulpit—and the organization of frequent religious services and various institutions, they increased the number of their followers, whom they misled with the false claim that the Holy Father, Pius X, had granted them his approval and blessing.

Footnotes:

92. Decree of the Holy Inquisition of April 24, 1858.

93. Decree of 15 December 1863.

94. Decree of 15 April 1848.

95. Decree of 10 December 1857.

96. It is a curious fact that, at that time, pseudo-mystics and pseudo-prophets such as Glouton, Albert, and Michel Vintras (Pierre Michel) emerged in France. The last of these established close ties with the Towiańczyk circle.

97. His final years were a succession of physical and moral sufferings, for even his own daughter had abandoned the “cause of God.” Before his death, he received the last sacraments but did not retract his errors, as he ought to have done. Does this not bear witness to his duplicity?

98. In presenting Towiański as a holy mystic, Ms. Zofia Gąsiorowska cites the work of the Jesuit Auguste Poulain (*Des grâces d’oraison*—or *Die Fülle der Gnaden* in the German translation); however, she is entirely mistaken, for in Part II, Chapters XXI and XXII, Father Poulain places orthodoxy, humility, and obedience to spiritual authority at the forefront of the criteria for distinguishing true mystics from false ones—qualities that were absent in Towiański.

99. Among our more recent writers, Wincenty Lutosławski speaks favorably of Towianism; for in *Jagiellonian Lectures* (Volume I, p. XXXV), he writes: “My Catholicism is a broad Catholicism—embracing all of humanity and characteristic of many Poles—professed even by the most independent spirits, such as Tomasz Zan, Mickiewicz, Słowacki, and Andrzej Towiański, that Polish apostle.”

100. Father Piotr Dzieniakowski testified under oath that Kozłowska had tried to entice him into debauchery. Other immoral affairs of hers also came to light.

101. Reader: “Church Newspaper” “Year” “1911” “No.” 13 “Letter” from Warsaw.

102. Initially, they were called mystics due to signs of asceticism (cf. Fr. Wł. Krynicki, *History of the Universal Church*, p. 717).

103. Church Gazette, 1st issue.

104. Kozłowska submitted her memorandum to Bishop Szembek through one of the priests, and subsequently traveled to Rome with a group of Mariavite priests, where she filed documents filled with complaints against the bishops and clergy of the Kingdom of Poland (cf. *Podręczna Encyklopedya Kościelna*, entry “Mariawici,” which also lists literature on this sect; see also the work by the Bishop of Płock, Antoni Julian Nowowiejski, titled *Płock*, published in 1917).

105. On the other hand, they know how to swindle money out of simple folk in various ways—for instance, by selling religious articles.

On January 30, 1906, having gathered in Płock, they decided to revive their congregation and—in order to carry on the “work of mercy” initiated by Kozłowska—once again elected Father Kowalski as their “Superior General” (106). Persisting ever further in their obstinacy,

on February 8, 1906, they renounced their obedience to the Bishop of Płock—and subsequently to other Polish bishops as well—thereby incurring the penalty of suspension.

Kowalski undertook a second journey to Rome to justify himself before the Holy Father; yet, upon returning to the country, acting on Kozłowska’s advice, he failed to keep the promises he had made.

Fresh upheavals and acts of lawlessness—which even played out within certain churches—prompted the issuance of the document *Tribus circiter* by Pius X (dated April 5, 1906); this document condemned the Mariavite associations and threatened them with ecclesiastical penalties (107). However, they rose in open rebellion—not only against the bishops but also against the Holy See—and formed a distinct Polish sect that recalls the Cathars of old and bears a striking resemblance to the Russian sect associated with Father John of Kronstadt. Specifically, in a circular dated April 13, 1906, Kowalski instructed Mariavite clergy to proclaim from the pulpit that Mariavites believe: 1) everything the Catholic Church teaches; 2) that the Lord God made Maria Franciszka (Kozłowska) most holy and bestowed upon her the same graces He granted to the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; 3) that mercy for the entire world lies in the hands of Saint Maria Franciszka, and no one shall obtain mercy without her help and intercession; 4) that prayer to Saint Maria Franciszka is not merely beneficial but essential for repelling Satanic snares and for strengthening the soul in God’s grace (108). It is hardly surprising that the cult surrounding Kozłowska assumed truly monstrous proportions—to such an extent that, as newspapers reported, Mariavite priests would fall to their knees before her, and one of them even offered a reliquary containing her hair for the sect members to kiss!

Since the Mariavites did not submit to the decree of Pius X dated April 5, 1906, the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition—acting on the express order of the Pope—issued a decree on December 5, 1906, excommunicating Kowalski and Kozłowska by name; the same penalty was later imposed on other Mariavite priests as well. There is no doubt that the Mariavites are heretics (109); for they reject hierarchical authority and the primacy of the Holy Father, claiming—along with schismatics—that the Church has only an invisible head, Jesus Christ, while a visible head is unnecessary.

Their view that Holy Scripture is the sole source of revelation, and that every individual is the subject of infallibility in matters of faith, is also heretical.

Furthermore, one might reproach that they erroneously portray the practice of frequent Communion and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as being—alongside prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help—absolutely necessary for salvation; —that they introduce the Polish language into the liturgy; —that they deny the Church its rightful prerogatives; —that, with great malice, they vilify Polish bishops and priests, accusing them of all manner of transgressions and thereby deeming them devoid of spiritual authority, while labeling the Holy See the “Apocalyptic harlot.”

Footnotes:

106. When Mariavite priests stopped in Loreto while traveling to Rome, they announced—purportedly as a prophecy from Kozłowska—that the Holy House of Loreto would be moved to Płock; consequently, the Bishop of Loreto wrote to Archbishop Popiel asking what should be made of this prophecy.

107. Addressed to the Archbishop of Warsaw and to the Bishops of Lublin and Płock.

108. Fr. Kantak, in his short work *Mankietnice i mankietnictwo* (Poznań, 1910), cites a litany that was composed containing the following invocation: “Holy Mary Frances, Bride (or Spouse) of Christ, pray for us!”

109. The teachings of the Mariavites are primarily contained in Kowalski’s circular of April 13, 1906; in their periodical titled *Mariawita*, published in Łódź—specifically in issues 11, 18, 19, 21, 23, 30, and 41 from 1907; and in the “Pastoral Letter” of “Bishop” Kowalski dated December 31, 1909.

The tactics of the Mariavites underwent the following evolution. Initially, they proclaimed that they believed everything the Church proposes for belief and that, despite severing ties with Rome and the bishops, no Mariavite ceased to be a Catholic—but rather became a more perfect one—by virtue of participating in the “Work of Mercy” led by the holy “Little Mother” Kozłowska. At a congress held in Płock in 1906, they even resolved not to introduce any innovations regarding public worship. Soon, however—apparently following directives from St. Petersburg—they formed a separate organization and replaced Latin with Polish in the liturgy (1908).

This absurd frenzy—at once anti-Catholic and anti-national (110)—would not have spread so rapidly were it not for the assistance of socialism on the one hand and the Russian government on the other (111). The Orthodox clergy also welcomed the emergence of this sect with joy; the prominent hierarch Eulogius, in a speech delivered on June 28, 1906, in Chełm, expressed the hope that all of Poland—”breaking with Latin superstition”—would become Mariavite, after which Mariavitism would merge with Orthodoxy. Backed by St. Petersburg (where certain publications, such as *Novoye Vremya*, *Svet*, and others, took the Mariavites under their wing), they managed by 1911 to build 90 houses of prayer and organize 70 parish districts—divided into two provinces, Polish and Lithuanian—gathering tens of thousands of adherents, or, according to some versions, over one hundred thousand “sheep.”

The apostate priests—of whom there were 29 in 1911 (in addition to 5 deacons)—recruit followers not only through constant religious services and an outward show of poverty—for they wear grey robes and live solely on voluntary contributions—but also by instituting a democratic structure for the sect’s administration (112) and by establishing various institutions and economic enterprises, such as day-care centers, schools, community centers, workshops, loan funds, cooperative stores, and the like.

Seeking to secure the existence of their sect, they entered into an agreement with the Old Catholics in Vienna, with the “Polish National Church” of the pseudo-bishop Hodur in North America, and with the Jansenist sect in the Netherlands; subsequently, on October 5, 1909, in Utrecht, Fr. Jan Maria Michał Kowalski received episcopal consecration at the hands of the Jansenist Archbishop Gerard Gul, and—having obtained government recognition—he consecrated two of his most ardent followers, Fr. Leon Gołębiowski and Fr. Roman Próchniewski, as “coadjutor bishops” (in 1910) (113).

From then on, the sect’s propaganda became more brazen, and its “missionaries” even ventured into Galicia (114). Although Redemptorist priests and other religious—having entered the Kingdom under the 1905 Edict of Toleration—did succeed in bringing a number of lay Mariavites (who were otherwise kept in strict isolation and a state of fanatical frenzy) back to their senses, the government forbade the continuation of these missions, anticipating that Mariavitism would serve as a bridge to Orthodoxy (115).

Meanwhile, a schism within the Mariavite movement occurred sooner than anticipated. Wacław Zebrowski, the pastor of the Warsaw Mariavite congregation, not only proclaimed the necessity of public confession from the pulpit and revealed his own transgressions, but also denounced the immoral lives of many other Mariavite clergy and accused both Kowalski and Kozłowska of squandering the essence of Mariavitism for personal gain (116). Furthermore, he discovered an even holier “Little Mother” in the person of the Mariavite Maryja Cygler (also known as Maryja Cychlarz or Maryja of Praga); later, in partnership with the apostate Stefan Bortkiewicz, he founded a new “Early Christian” sect in Warsaw, which received official government recognition.

Although Kowalski—with the assistance of government delegate Tyazhelnikov—succeeded in removing Zebrowski from office and securing the election of Próchniewski (117) in his place, as well as having Maria Cygler expelled from the country as a foreign national, the unrest among the Mariavites did not subside.

Footnotes:

110. For this reason, even such enemies of the Church as Świętochowski do not champion the cause of the Kozłowites; only Niemojewski saw them as pioneers of a “Polish national Church.”

111. Bishop Nowowiejski writes (loc. cit.) that exquisite embroideries and other items from Kozłowska’s workshop were sent not only to the governor but also to the Tsar.

112. Each parish is governed by a board and a general meeting—in which all adult parishioners of both genders have a vote and decisions are made by an absolute majority. Parishes are grouped into districts administered by deans. General chapters are also held, attended by lay representatives of the parishes.

113. A government representative was present at this ceremony, which took place in Łowicz and followed Catholic rites but was conducted in Polish.

114. In his “pastoral letter,” as well as in the *Mariavite Calendar*, *Mariawita*, and *Mariavite News*, Kowalski heaped the mud of insults and slander upon the Catholic Church. Conversely, he shows almost idolatrous reverence for “Mother”; in return, “Mother” proclaims that, in a “revelation,” she heard the following testimony from Christ the Lord regarding Kowalski: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. He shall overturn the tables of the money-changers in my temple.”

115. Russian courts severely punished any word disparaging the sect, and deemed the ridiculing of “Mother” Kozłowska’s “revelations” to be “blasphemy”!

116. Church Gazette Year XIX No. 4

117. This came about because only Kowalski’s supporters—940 of them—were permitted to vote, and only upon presentation of his authorization. On January 1, 1911, there were a mere 2,300 Mariavites in Warsaw.

The Russian government, meanwhile, seeking to enhance the standing of Mariavitism, recognized it as a distinct religious denomination and permitted Mariavite clergy to organize church congregations and separate cemeteries, conduct services, maintain civil status registers, and so forth; it reserved for itself only the right to approve their bishops. In return, Mariavite “bishops” would travel to St. Petersburg to pay homage and—before the “Holy Synod”—rail against Catholicism in order to improve the sect’s dire financial situation (118).

In 1915, the Austrian government, acting through the military command in the Lublin region, ordered the closure of all Mariavite churches, schools, and institutions. This decision was based on the principle that only denominations tolerated within the Austrian monarchy were permitted to hold services in the occupied territories—a criterion that Mariavitism failed to meet (119). However, in 1918, this regulation was revoked in the Austrian-occupied zone, and freedom was granted to the Mariavites; meanwhile, in the German-occupied zone of the Kingdom, they were openly taken under protection.

Nevertheless, it is safe to say that the Mariavite sect—recruited primarily from among fanatical women and the socialist proletariat—will share the fate of the Old Catholic sect, which numbered a mere 6,000 adherents across all of Europe in 1906.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the founders of new sects also appeared in the Kingdom of Poland—such as Stolarski, a miller from Błonie near Warsaw; Kot, a worker from Sosnowiec (founder of the “churchless” sect); and Prejs from Siedlce—but they failed to gather a significant number of followers. In more recent times, Baptists—who rebaptize adults joining their sect (120)—have sought to make inroads into Galicia from Silesia. So too have Spiritualists, who reject Catholic doctrine regarding the Holy Trinity, Redemption, the Sacraments, and eternity, branding the Catholic Church a hotbed of hypocrisy, falsehood, and superstition. Instead, they teach that Christ is merely a prophet, that souls enter other bodies after death, that the source of “truth” is Scripture (though not the Catholic version), and that spirits from the beyond—with whom one can communicate through special “mediums” or via spinning tables—aid in understanding the Scriptures.

Truly, there is no madness a person will not believe if they reject the true faith.

Let us now turn to the political and social arena; here, too, we witness a struggle against religion and the Christian order. The Revolution—tamed by Napoleon I and harnessed to his chariot — made a triumphal march across Europe with him, winning admirers everywhere.

Although Napoleon’s chariot was shattered, the Revolution did not follow him to Saint Helena, nor did it quail before the “Holy Alliance”; indeed, bolstered by the anti-religious spirit of the age, it constantly makes its presence felt to the world. At times, it raises a glorious banner, standing in defense of violated national rights, championing liberty, or redressing wrongs; more often, however, its actions are destructive—it strikes fiercely at religion and commits heinous outrages (121).

Since many people accept its principles but do not approve of violent upheavals, the revolution seeks to gradually win over public opinion to these principles through the press and to rule via parliaments. It even enters into compromises with monarchs, leaving them a semblance of power in exchange for their assistance in the struggle against religion; at other times, it casts aside the Phrygian cap and places a crown upon its own brow, as it recently did in Italy. One form of revolution is anti-Christian liberalism—also known as the “blue revolution”—which, in the name of freedom, imposes shackles upon the Church and, under the banner of progress, strips society of its Christian character, seeking instead to replace religion with humanitarianism and civilization—or at least to limit religion’s influence and subject the Church entirely to secular authority; it proclaims the secular state, the secular school, liberated morality, civil marriage with divorce, the equal status of all denominations, and the separation of Church and State as the age’s most brilliant achievements. Such liberalism is also a herald of atheism.

Caesaropapism readily allies itself with this—advocating for absolute state authority, even in the spiritual realm, and recognizing no Church other than a state or national one; the aim of Caesaropapism is the subjugation of the Catholic Church and the violation of religious freedom. History bears witness to how much the Church suffered at the hands of Protestantism and Orthodoxy—particularly through the oppression of Catholics in Russia and Poland by Tsars Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II—and to the wounds inflicted upon the Church by the Prussian *Kulturkampf*.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Church faced persecution even in Catholic countries — whether due to the outbreak of revolutions (such as in France in 1871; Spain in 1820, 1868, 1874, and 1909; Italy in 1849 and 1870; or Portugal after 1910), the influence of anti-religious liberalism (for instance, in Austria after 1867 and in Bavaria after 1871), or the dominance of radical, socialist, and Masonic elements in parliaments (such as in Brazil in 1874, Switzerland in 1873, and France at the beginning of the 20th century). The modern state declares itself to be interdenominational or even non-denominational, and not only does it fail to support the Catholic religion — a duty to which it formerly acknowledged, yet it often disadvantages and wrongs it, while abetting unbelief and moral decay. Thus, for instance, in France after 1906, an anarchist enjoyed greater freedom of movement than a Catholic priest; likewise, prostitutes are permitted to join together in their shameful trade, whereas nuns are forbidden to live together or wear the habit—even if they wish to dedicate their efforts to poor children or the abandoned sick—unless they hold specific authorization from the state.

Footnotes:

118. They began building a cathedral and a seminary in Płock, while treating “Holy Mother” Kozłowska with a certain disdain—as a tool no longer needed. In 1913, Father Edward Marks left the sect and received absolution from the excommunication.

119. Newspapers reported that in 1916, over 8,000 Mariavites renounced their errors. In 1917, there were 188 sectarians in Płock (42 men and 146 women), and approximately 3,000 in the entire Diocese of Płock.

120. In 1912, Teodor Brzozoń from Silesia propagated this sect in Nowy Sącz, distributing Bibles and pamphlets (such as “A Sack for the Judases”) and claiming to belong to a society named “Let There Be Light.”

121. These persecutions are discussed at greater length in the work *Pius IX and His Pontificate*.

In addition to these currents hostile to religion, there is one even more dangerous than all the rest—anti-Christian socialism. Instead of seeking—as the Catholic Church always does—to remedy the abuses of capitalism and uplift the lower classes through legal means, this movement aims to overthrow the entire order founded upon Christianity. The path was charted by Babeuf during the French Revolution and by Count Claude de Saint-Simon in the early 19th century (d. 1825). The principles of Saint-Simonianism were further developed in France by Bazard, Enfantin, Fourier, Blanc, Cabet, and Proudhon—who leaned toward extreme communism—while in Germany, socialist theories were formulated and put into practice by Lassalle, Marx, Bebel, Liebknecht, and others. Both systems wage a war to the death against the Catholic religion, viewing it as the defender of authority, law, and property... It strips the proletariat of faith in God, so as to more easily drive it toward social revolution.

Admittedly, socialism terms religion a “private matter” and allows its adherents to believe whatever they wish—or not to believe at all; yet, by its very nature, it is hostile to all religion—especially the Catholic faith—because, adhering to extreme materialism, it seeks heaven only on earth while rejecting belief in God and the afterlife. Its guiding principle is embodied in the words spoken by one of the party leaders, Bebel, in the German parliament (December 31, 1881): “In the political sphere, we aim for a republic; in the economic sphere, for collectivism; and in the sphere known as religious, for atheism.” Such, too, is Liebknecht’s program: “The future belongs to atheism. It is our duty to eradicate belief in God with the utmost ferocity, and only he is worthy of the name ‘socialist’ who, being an unbeliever himself, strives with all diligence to instill this unbelief in others.”

The famous Belgian socialist Émile Vandervelde justifies the need to combat religion as follows: Socialism sets itself the task of “making people free,” and this freedom entails the overthrow of the Christian worldview, which is based on Divine revelation and upheld by authority. With the disappearance of the economic world order that socialists oppose, its “religious reflection” will also vanish. Vanderwelde openly admits that all socialist systems—whether idealistic or materialistic, utopian or scientific—introduce not only a new political economy but also a new philosophy, a new morality, and a new legal order; consequently, they also aim to revolutionize the entire legal, moral, philosophical, and religious structure (123).

It is needless to mention that anarchism and nihilism—those ugly offspring of socialism and communism—avow atheism.

Tolstoyism—founded by Count Leo Tolstoy, the renowned Russian writer and philanthropist (born 1828; died November 20, 1910)—touches upon the theory of socialism, or rather communism. Having won renown through several outstanding novels, he began to expound views ostensibly derived from the Gospel; at the same time, in his village of Yasnaya Polyana, he dedicated himself to working with the common people, emulating the peasant way of life. The essence of his teaching is a morality devoid of dogma—centered particularly on love for one’s neighbor—intended to unite all people in brotherhood and lead them to an ideal state. Conversely, he rejects all supernatural elements, including the divinity of Christ, the sacraments, and the Church. Furthermore, he condemns state structures, the right to property, the institution of marriage, art, and modern civilization—effectively challenging the contemporary order and propagating anarchism in the religious, political, and social spheres. It must be said to his credit, however, that he champions the cause of the oppressed; ...yet, on the other hand, it forbids any resistance to evil. It has been rightly said that his entire theory—bearing a seemingly Christian veneer—is a “bizarre combination of pantheistic philosophy and rationalist criticism, of communist daydreams and sentimentalism, and of Buddhist passivity” (124). Our novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz also rightly expressed the following judgment of Tolstoy in a letter to the editors of *Russkiye Vedomosti*: “In him, the idea of ​​a revolution—which he himself does not wish to bring about through violence—combines with the Gospel idyll he seeks and desires to create on earth. In a sense, he is your Rousseau, with the addition of a Slavic mysticism inclined toward faith.” Although the Synod of St. Petersburg excommunicated Count Tolstoy, his theories have quite a few admirers in Russia; yet the “colonies of the “intelligentsia ploughmen,” established according to his program, did not succeed.

Footnotes:

122. Bebel himself wrote in his work *Die Frau*: “Christianity and socialism are opposed to each other like fire and water”; the words “let us leave heaven to the angels and the sparrows” (after Heine) are also his.

123. In the pamphlet *Socialism and Religion*—which was also translated into Polish (cf. *Przegląd Powszechny*, April 1919, p. 242)—[the stance is outlined]. During the war years of 1914–1919, the socialist party in Poland did not campaign as fiercely against religion and the Church; however, this was merely a temporary tactic, and by 1919, the party had already begun to lean toward communism and “Bolshevism.” There can be no question of reconciling extreme socialism with religion.

124. Church Encyclopedia, Volume XXIII, 554.

VIII. The solace it brought... ...to the nation in times of great suffering. — IX. How the Polish nation repaid religion in ages past. — X. The state of religion in the three Polish territories during the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. — XI. What the war of 1914–1918 brought to the nation. — XII. A call to hold fast to the Catholic faith in principle and in life, and to strengthen the religious spirit within Polish society.

I. What was the Polish nation before its baptism? A tribe of no consequence. Where they settled, various Slavic peoples had previously dwelt—peoples who practiced idolatry, were unrefined and unenlightened in civilization, and lacked any political cohesion, often warring among themselves. Only when the Lord’s voice rang out over them—”Arise and be enlightened, for your light has come”—did a great transformation take place within them. Idols vanished, sacred fires were extinguished, and ancient superstitions retreated into the depths of the forests; in their stead, the Christian religion extended its sway, bringing with it a host of profoundly deep truths—that supernatural philosophy which turns the simple into sages—and a sublime, pure moral law that elevates man to the heights of perfection. For nine centuries, this religion has been the mentor of the Polish nation, nurturing so many great sages within its fold. Truly, it resembles a magnificent queen to whose throne come—bearing homage—all those in the nation who shone with true wisdom: its saints, both men and women; its kings and queens; its bishops and priests; its hetmans, knights, and dignitaries; its poets, artists, and scholars. Following them comes an untold multitude of believers of every station and age; all lay their prayers, deeds, struggles, and sufferings at her feet, and all cry out with fervor: Honor to you, holy religion! Honor to you, Catholic Church!

With true wisdom, the Catholic religion brought every virtue to the Polish nation and raised up great saints on its soil—figures who became shining beacons for future generations. Over the centuries, these included such saints as Andrzej Żurawek, Stanislaus (Bishop and Martyr), Wincenty Kadłubek, Iwo, Jacek, Czesław, Sadok, Prandota, Wit, Jakub Strepa, Władysław of Gielniów, Szymon of Lipnica, Jan of Dukla, Michał Giedroyć, Jan Kanty, Izajasz Boner, Kazimierz, Stanisław Kostka, Jozafat, and Andrzej Bobola; alongside them, the halo of holiness also shone upon women such as Bronisława, Jadwiga, Kinga, Jolanta, and Salomea. All these perfect souls of heroic virtue are the fruits of the Catholic religion—children of the fruitful and holy Mother Church.

This religion nurtured millions of the sons and daughters of this land at its breast, bestowing upon them light, solace, peace, and hope, and—after a God-fearing life and a blessed death—commended them to heaven. It sanctified family life and made it so strong that it withstood the blows of the past and stands as one of our bulwarks for the future. Finally, it left its mark on social and public life, such that there was no matter of importance upon which it did not bestow its consecration.

The power of this religion cannot be curbed today. Let everyone live according to its rules. And she will sanctify everyone and make them happy, as in life, as in eternity. Let them introduce ‎her ‎order ‎to ‎their ‎houses, ‎and no ‎stopping their dilemma or ‎transgression.‎ Let them take over in her spirit the social, and public life of the nation, and there will be no shortage of for him spiritual health, for heaven’s blessing.

II. With God’s truth and virtue, Polish civilization came to earth. First, there was noise here. thick forests, among which people, dressed in skins, chased wild animals with spears. Then they fell on their faces in front of the statues of Światowid or Perkun; and the settlement There were few cultivated fields. Only when the apostles arrived here from abroad with a cross in their hands did they start cutting down the forests. and build churches, and alongside them, establish cities and villages. Churches also have become the first centers of education and have been silent so far in churches, especially cathedral churches. Abbots, the first schools were built and, apparently, light flowed abundantly from them, since Under Bolesław II, the Poles themselves could sit on the episcopal chairs, and since they were already in In the 12th and 13th centuries, learned men came out of these schools, like Mateusz, Cholewa, and Wincenty. Kadłubek, Boguchwał, Baszko, Dzierżwa and others.

We also read that Saint Stanisław Szczepanowski passed from the cathedral school in Gniezno to the then famous school. Paris University (1); there is no doubt that they existed here in the 13th century and parochial schools there.

According to ancient tradition, Bishop Iwo (+‎ 1229) founded a parish school in Krakow. parish church of the Holy Trinity (later the Blessed Virgin Mary), apparently complying with the law of the Council Lateran Fourth (of 1215), which recalled the ancient decrees obliging bishops to maintain at cathedrals and other wealthier churches, paid teachers who would teach poor youth grammar, and theology. In the spirit of this Act, the synod of Łęczyca, convened by Archbishop Pełka, in 1257, called on parish priests to establish ‎schools‎ ‎„pro‎ ‎honore‎ ‎ecclesiarum‎ ‎sucirum‎ ‎et‎ ‎ad‎ ‎laudem‎ ‎divinam“. (”For the honor of the churches and to the praise of God.)

When, after the Tartar invasions in the 13th century, many colonists came to depopulate Poland. from Germany, and even rich monasteries of Benedictines, Canons Regulars, Cistercians and Norbertines became populated with Germans, as a result of which the schools were threatened by Germanization, the Synod of Łęczyca of last year 1285 resolved that only such churches should be established for cathedral churches, monastic churches and others. rectors of schools who, knowing the Polish language properly, could lecture students on authors in Polish; The synod of 1326 even restricted this act by interdict (2).

In recent centuries we find folk schools in cities and some villages, in which taught usually by a priest or dominus, elected and maintained mainly by the parish priest; moreover, there were at chapters, at cathedral schools, at the helm of scholasticism, at collegiate schools, at collegiate schools, at monasteries monastic schools. The scientific plan in these schools was the same as in the other schools. countries, this is above the lower (trivial or elementary) schools in which it was taught religion, reading and writing, as well as Latin grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric (the so-called trivium), permanent universities where arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music were taught (the so-called quadrivium); A lecture was also added to cathedral and monastery schools, also for candidates for the clergy. philosophy and theology (3). All schools were under the care of secular and religious clergy; it also practiced almost exclusively the field of science at that time. The Krakow Academy was founded in 1364 by Casimir the Great and renovated in 1364. ‎1400‎ by Władysław Jagiełło, owes a lot to the Church, because not only ‎Urban‎ ‎V her approved, and Boniface, IX, in 1397, supplemented the theological faculty, and not only Krakow bishops held the office of chancellor and funded new cathedrals, but ‎masters‎ for ‎four ‎centuries‎ were ‎almost‎ clergymen themselves, ‎of‎ many of whom taught ‎and‎ ‎virtue‎ brought‎ fame to the nation ‎(4).

From the second half of the 16th century they worked diligently and profitably in the field of education. Jesuits, Piarists, Theatines, Basilians and other orders, while for girls they opened schools in the 17th century, the Visitation Sisters, the 19th century, the Sercanki Sisters, the Ursuline Sisters, the Niepokalanki Sisters, the Felician Sisters, and the Felician Sisters ‎other‎ Assemblies; but ‎schools we already meet women in previous centuries, especially; at the monasteries of the Benedictine Sisters, the Poor Clares and the Norbertines. After the partition of Poland, the clergy persistently defended the Catholic and Polish character of the school and the work on folk education has always been at the forefront.

The accusation of some writers that the former monastic schools, especially the Jesuit schools, contributed ‎until Poland’s fall, it ‎can’t ‎stand, given conscientious historical research, but it has its source in the reluctance towards Catholicism, especially towards the Society of Jesus (5). In terms of teaching, the new schools were not as high as today’s schools, but they nurtured the spirit of faith and discipline in young people, and what should I say about later secular schools? You can’t.

In the past, many schools owed their origins to bishops; there is enough to point out to the appeals of the archpastors of the Polish Kingdom, encouraging the clergy to follow the liberation of the country from The Russian yoke was vigorously established in 1915 Polish schools and “informed” the people about the need for a common, associated educational action (6).

Footnotes:

1. This is not certain, because Gniezno was destroyed by the Czechs in 1038.

2. The Synod of Łęczyca in 1285 also decreed that only clergy born in Poland and fluent in the Polish language should receive benefices involving pastoral duties (Canon 36).

3. See the Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia of X. Nowodworski, T. XXVIII art. of Schools in Poland, Dr. ‎Antoni ‎Karbowiak ‎Parish schools in ‎Poland in the 13th and 14th centuries (Discourses of the Academy) ‎Skills‎ ‎Volume ‎XXV, Kraków, ‎ pages ‎ 292 ‎ sq).

4. Read the speech delivered by the same author at the founding of the Collegium Novum on May 26, 1883, in which the most distinguished masters are enumerated.

5. Rev. Stanisław Załęski, S.J. Did the Jesuits Ruin Poland? Lwów, 1875.

6. Circular of Aleksander Kakowski, Archbishop of Warsaw, from 1916.

III. The Church also made significant contributions to the development of legislation and the maintenance of public order. Acting as guardians of morality, shepherds of souls, and senators of the realm, bishops strove to ensure the enactment of just laws and often punished offenders with the spiritual sword. When, as early as the 12th century, the lower classes began to face oppression, the bishops—gathered at Łęczyca—solemnly declared: “Let anyone who dares to seize grain from the poor by force or fraud be excommunicated. Let anyone who seizes livestock for transport duty—except in times of enemy invasion—be excommunicated” (1180). These were no idle threats; indeed, the curse frequently fell upon brazen violators of divine and human law, even those seated upon royal or princely thrones. The bishops, therefore, put a stop to the injustice and tyranny that elsewhere perpetrated such severe lawlessness.

Later, when the nobility abused their liberties, shackled royal authority, and began to oppress the lower orders—when anarchy reigned in the land and unbridled license ran rampant, escalating (especially after the Reformation) into open rebellions and collusion with the nation’s enemies—religion alone served to heal, at least in part, these grievous wounds; for it was the only force that still commanded respect among the people. Indeed, when unruly nobles were hacking at one another during their assemblies, the mere bringing forth of the Blessed Sacrament sufficed to disarm the furious combatants and bring them to their knees. Thunderous denunciations of the wicked would also ring out from the pulpits, including the prophecies of figures like Skarga, who warned that Poland would dig its own grave through its vices (7).

IV. The Catholic religion remained the principal pillar of national and political unity. The baptism accepted by Mieszko and his subjects saved the Polish tribe from certain Germanization and became the foundation of a threefold life: religious, national, and political. As a daughter of the Church, Poland entered the great Christian family; this move, on the one hand, held back the Germans—who brought the faith at the point of the sword—and on the other, drew in neighboring Slavs, thereby facilitating the formation of a unified nation and a strong state. Though initially weak, the state’s structure was strengthened by the influence of religion, the protection of the Holy See, and the fruits of civilization, enabling it to weather the storms that raged during the interregnum following Mieszko II, after the exile of Bolesław the Bold, and during the Tatar invasions—and even when the sons... Even when Wrymouth’s successors tore her body apart, she did not cease to exist, for the Catholic religion was her soul, and the Church hierarchy—headed by the Metropolitan of Gniezno—was the bond of her unity.

V. Furthermore, religion assigned the Polish nation a noble mission: to carry the light of the Gospel and Western civilization to the East, to unite the Eastern and Western Churches, and to repel with its own breast the invasions—whether by pagan Prussians, Yotvingians, and Lithuanians; by followers of Islam—the Tatars and Turks; by Muscovy as the heir to Byzantium; or by the pioneers of Protestantism. If the nation fulfilled this mission—at least in part—if it blunted the horns of the Crescent, won Lithuania for the faith of the Cross through the sacrifice of Queen Jadwiga, and reconciled the schismatic Rus’ with Rome, the primary credit for this belongs once again to religion. For it was religion that, through the voice of the Apostolic See, spurred the nation to great deeds; it was religion that commanded it to march to Legnica, Varna, Khotyn, and Vienna; and it was religion that kindled its chivalry with a holy fire, so that... ...with the hymn “Bogarodzica Dziewica” or the cry “Jesus, Mary” on their lips, they routed far more numerous enemy forces.

VI. It may be said that whatever good and holy deeds the Polish nation accomplished in the past sprang from religious sources; and in this, the Apostolic See and the clergy played a major part.

Among the many benefits bestowed by the Holy See, it suffices to mention the most significant ones: the establishment of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Poland—specifically the metropolitan sees of Gniezno by Sylvester II, Lwów by Gregory XI, and Warsaw by Pius VII; the introduction of order and ecclesiastical discipline in the Middle Ages through legates, and the defense of the faith against heresies in the 16th century; the assistance rendered to Władysław the Elbow-high by Boniface VIII and John XXII, to John Casimir by Alexander VII, and to John Sobieski by Innocent XI; the authorization to found universities—in Kraków, Vilnius, and Zamość—and the solemn canonizations or beatifications of our Saints; as well as the numerous apostolic writings, consistorial allocutions, and addresses to Polish pilgrimages or delegations—particularly those of Pius IX and Leo... ...and Pius X—the establishment in Rome of two institutions, the Polish College in 1866 and the Polish Hospice in 1910—the elevation of sixteen Polish dignitaries to the cardinalate—the rebuke of our persecutors by Gregory XVI and Pius IX, as well as words of comfort during times of grievous calamity and misfortune, such as after the uprising of 1863 or the devastation of the last war. May the nation repay this truly maternal care—spanning ten centuries—shown by the Holy See with reverence, love, and obedience, as well as fidelity to Catholic principles; and may it firmly anchor its own vessel, battered by so many storms, to the Barque of Peter.

The Polish nation also owes a great deal to its bishops—acting as princes of the Church and senators of the kingdom—who cared so deeply for the realm’s welfare that more than one was hailed as a “Father of the Fatherland.” Their achievements are inscribed in letters of gold upon the pages of the nation’s history (9).

Polish priests have always followed—and continue to follow—in the footsteps of the bishops. The glory of God, the good of the Church, and the salvation of souls hold the foremost place in their priorities, for this is their true calling; Yet, a love for all that benefits the nation and society sits easily alongside this task. As sowers of eternal truths and guides to the heavenly homeland, they do not renounce their earthly homeland; on the contrary, they feel—with a fervent heart—every one of its sorrows, joys, and hopes. Whoever wishes to know what priests do for the Polish nation need only observe how they exhaust their strength—whether in the pastoral care of souls, in the education and upbringing of the youth, or in social work. — then let him count, once again, all those who—following in the footsteps of magnanimous bishops such as Sołtyk, Załuski, Feliński, Krasiński, Popiel, Łubieński, Borowski, Ledóchowski, Janiszewski, Hryniewiecki, Symon, and Ropp—went into exile, languished in prison dungeons, froze on the Siberian wastes, or even perished on the gallows. And who, in light of this, would dare accuse the Polish clergy of a lack of love for their homeland?

VII. The Catholic religion has stood—and continues to stand—as a guardian of domestic harmony, social order, and the national spirit. In the Poland of old, the political system was such that the nobility alone—having appropriated all privileges—influenced the country’s governance and destiny, while the rural population and the townspeople played no part in the nation’s public life. At that time, the altar was virtually the sole bond uniting diverse social strata; before it, caste distinctions faded, and all felt themselves to be children of one Father in heaven and one mother on earth. Even today—though conditions have improved—the altar remains a bond of unity that extends beyond church walls to influence social and political life; furthermore, the Catholic religion serves as the strongest unifying force among the three Polish regions. Thanks to this bond, we do not experience the kind of severe fragmentation seen, for instance, in Germany—divided into Catholic and Protestant camps—or in Belgium, France, Portugal, and Italy, where the influence of godless sects has spawned solid phalanxes of non-believers, driven by a fanatical vehemence. ...to the point where even fratricidal conflict ensued. For there, a savage mob—incited by anti-religious newspapers and Masonic or freethinking congresses (10)—attacked processions, demolished churches, desecrated the Blessed Sacrament, smashed crosses, and murdered priests and nuns, just as occurred recently in Barcelona and Lisbon, and earlier during the Commune in Paris. Admittedly, something of this sort will likely never appear on Polish soil; yet, do we possess the unity and harmony that ought to exist among the sons of the same mother—the Church—and the same mother—the Fatherland? Alas, it is lacking; Yet in every region, we witness discord and turmoil—at times even fierce factional strife, such as that which manifested itself in the first Polish Sejm (11). Discord was our undoing in the past; discord could now paralyze the many sacrifices and efforts made to restore the nation to new life. May everyone, therefore, remember that the good of the homeland demands internal and enduring unity regarding matters of necessity—namely, those concerning the Catholic faith, private and public morality, national existence, and social order.

The good of the fatherland also requires that all social strata develop properly and show a willingness to make sacrifices for the public cause—and that special care be extended to the poorest and most neglected groups, providing them with greater virtue, enlightenment, and sustenance, thereby averting the class struggle that the socialist party seeks to incite on Polish soil as well. The Catholic Church plays a leading role in this regard; in the past, it strove to alleviate the harsh lot of the rural population and established numerous charitable institutions to bring relief to the unfortunate, and now, encouraged by the Vicars of Christ, it devotes itself with zeal to Catholic social action. May men and women of the educated class willingly join the clergy in this effort, for there is no shortage of poverty and ignorance among us, and thus the harvest is... Abundant.

Finally, the good of the homeland requires that all social strata become thoroughly imbued with a truly national spirit; and in this regard, the Catholic religion is a most powerful instrument. For what was it that saved our nation from Germanization and Russification? Devotion to the Catholic religion and to the homeland. Where did the Polish language—suppressed on all sides—find its final refuge? In the temples of the Lord. What gave our persecuted brethren such great resilience, enabling them to fear neither draconian laws, nor plunder, nor exile, nor death? Above all, the faith of their fathers. Who endured the greatest suffering in defense of the Church and the homeland? The clergy. The enemy knew well that a change in religion easily leads to the loss of national identity; thus, for over a century, they deported bishops and priests, abolished monasteries, closed churches, suppressed the Uniate Church, introduced the language of Orthodoxy into worship, imposed intruders and traitors as shepherds, and severed ties with the Holy See. Yet Divine Providence watched over the Polish nation, ensuring that, despite persecutions and temptations, it remained faithful to the Church and the homeland. The Catholic religion also safeguarded the Catholic and national spirit from corruption—in Galicia against Josephinism and liberalism; in the Poznań region against Protestant rationalism; and in the Kingdom against Orthodoxy and the Russian spirit.

VIII. The Polish nation owes inestimable blessings to the Catholic religion; from it, too, the nation drew sweet solace and strength in times of hardship. Indeed, it was this faith that fortified the martyrs of Sandomierz as they were slaughtered by the Mongol hordes; it helped wretched captives, driven into bondage, to bear their chains; and during the Swedish invasion, it defended Jasna Góra, led the King before the image of the Most Holy Virgin of Grace in Lwów, and drove the invaders from the land.

Image of Our Lady of Grace, the Beautiful Star of Lwów.

The Lwów Oath (April 1, 1656) by Jan Matejko

Yet even heavier calamities were to follow. For the mistreatment of the faith, for the arrogance and lawlessness of the powerful, for the debasement of royal authority and the oppression of the common people, and for selfishness and discord, God punished the entire nation; He struck the crown from its brow and delivered it into the power of enemies who tormented it without mercy. In this time of great suffering, however, religion was — and remains — the nation’s tenderest comforter. Together with poetry imbued by its spirit, religion sang a song of hope to the nation, pointing toward God’s mercy; it roused the people from the slumber of despair — just as an angel once awakened Elijah — saying: “Nation, arise! Partake of God’s sustenance and press onward along the Lord’s path, for you have not yet fulfilled your mission.” She led him to the throne of the Queen of the Polish Crown, so that before Her he might pour out his tears, offer his prayers, and find solace (12). With a mother’s love, She healed the nation’s wounds, infused the cup of its bitterness with drops of heavenly sweetness, visited its sons in prison, and accompanied them on the terrible march to Siberia or to the scaffold. Through the lips of Christ’s Vicars, She called upon the whole world to pray for unhappy Poland, while simultaneously exhorting the nation to “patience, steadfastness, and courage” (13). It was She, too, who in 1875 strengthened the peasants of Podlasie, enabling them to die for their faith — with the courage of the martyrs of old—at the churches in Drelów and Pratulin, or to endure long and terrible persecution with fortitude. During the Great War of 1914 — 1919, and amidst the tribulations that followed, it brought comfort to millions of Polish souls weighed down by heavy sorrow, while awakening in all of them the hope of a better future.

Footnotes:

7. In the text titled *A Call to Prayer in Times of War*, a complaint is leveled against the lords for treating peasants like purchased slaves—or even worse—squeezing the very blood from them and destroying their health; furthermore, the author rebukes those who, having turned to heresy, immediately become tyrants over their subjects, forcing them to believe just as they do.

8. By the same author, read: *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, 2nd edition, Przemyśl 1908; *Pius IX and Poland*, Przemyśl 1916.

9. Some bishops of old Poland could even be reproached for occasionally lingering too long at the royal court and changing their sees too frequently, or for establishing too few Latin churches and parishes in the eastern dioceses; yet this last charge weighs even more heavily upon the nobility who held estates in Red Ruthenia, Podolia, Volhynia, and Ukraine.

10. “Freethinkers” even held such a congress in the “capital of Christianity” (in May 1885).

11. Cf. the same author’s *Call to Work for the Spiritual Rebirth of the Nation* (4th ed., p. 20) and the sermon delivered in Warsaw on January 11, 1920, on the occasion of the presentation of the Pius IX candle.

12. See, by the same author: *Sermons on the Blessed Virgin Mary* (Kraków, 1897), Vol. I: On the Queenship and Protection of the Blessed Virgin over the Polish Nation.

13. Words spoken by Pius IX to Polish pilgrims on June 6, 1877; see *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, Vol. III, p. 248.

IX. Such has been and remains the Catholic religion for the Polish nation; and how did the nation repay the religion?

In the early centuries of its existence, the nation held fast to it, shaping its private, family, and public life in accordance with it; it was then that the nation produced many Saints—so much so that, for this reason above all, the 15th century came to be known among us as the “happy age.” It was not until the 16th century, due to the machinations of foreign influences and domestic pseudo-reformers, that defections from Catholicism to heretical sects occurred — particularly among the magnates and the nobility (many of whom “changed their faith like a garment”) and among the Germanized townspeople. Yet, in the second half of that same century, many who had gone astray returned to the fold of the Church, thanks to the efforts of the Holy See and its legates, the support of kings such as Stephen Báthory and Sigismund III, and the labors of bishops like Hosius and priests like Skarga and others. Towards the end of the 16th century, the Ruthenian schismatic dioceses—with the exception of those of Lwów and Przemyśl—accepted the Union.

In the 17th century, following the Swedish invasion and the expulsion of the Arians, the Catholic spirit gained strength within Polish society; yet, despite this, harmful vices—such as indiscipline, discord, and selfishness — became more rampant than before, followed later by drunkenness, extravagance, venality in the service of the fatherland’s enemies, and divorces among the aristocracy. During the second half of the 18th century and the early 19th century, faith waned among many educated individuals under the influence of French literature (Voltaireanism) and Masonic lodges—the number of which reached 44 by 1820 (14) — while Polish society was adversely affected by Josephinism in the Austrian partition and by Protestant rationalism, along with the philosophies of Kant and Hegel, in the Prussian partition (15).

X. And what was the state of religion in the three Polish territories during the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th?

In the oldest Piast territory, the Prussian *Kulturkampf* not only failed to achieve victory but actually contributed to uniting all social strata under the Catholic banner and intensifying both religious and national spirit—a result owing much to the clergy and their valiant leaders, such as Archbishops Ledóchowski, Stablewski, and Likowski, Bishop Janiszewski, Father J. Koźmian, and many others.

It is deeply regrettable, however, that after 1885, some rural landowners—finding themselves in dire economic straits—sold their estates to the Colonization Commission; the government seized this opportunity to bring in throngs of German colonists and establish numerous new Protestant communities (16). The government’s ill will was manifested not only by its pushing through the Sejm the act on the compulsory expropriation of Polish land (17), but also by its refusal — following the death of the distinguished prelate Florian Stablewski (d. November 24, 1906) — to allow a Pole to occupy the See of Gniezno and Poznań; it was not until the Great War that the government consented to the appointment of Edward Likowski (d. February 20, 1915) — the diocese’s highly meritorious administrator and Suffragan Bishop of Poznań — as archbishop, a position in which he was succeeded by Father Edmund Dalbor.

In Galicia, Austrian Josephinism—in tandem with the liberalism that followed—instilled a certain religious indifference in many educated minds, accompanied by a prejudice against the Church. However, the second half of the 19th century saw a turn for the better in these circles, driven by the clergy’s more zealous efforts, pilgrimages to Rome (1877, 1881, 1888, 1893, 1900, 1904), and Catholic congresses (1893, 1896, 1904, 1911, and 1912), as well as the proliferation of Marian Sodalities, Catholic associations, missions, and retreats held in towns and villages alike.

Today, this region too faces certain dangers threatening religion, morality, and social order.

Pernicious currents emanating from the Kingdom of Poland and abroad did not fail to influence educated circles—particularly university students—as evidenced by the establishment of the League of Free Thought and the Free School Association (18) in Lwów, as well as the non-denominational Ethical Society in Kraków and elsewhere.

The deplorable disturbances instigated by a segment of the Jagiellonian University student body in 1910 and 1911—under the slogans “Down with clericalism!” and “Down with the Faculty of Theology!”—demonstrate that anti-religious agitation is becoming increasingly brazen. It is being fanned not only by socialists and Jews but also by radical and freethinking publications.

Socialism made inroads into major cities as early as the late 19th century; finding financial backing and shrewd leaders among the Jewish population, it recruited a segment of workers, artisans, and older students to the red banner. A certain weakening of faith was evident within these circles — hardly surprising, given that socialist meetings and publications (such as *Naprzód*, *Głos*, and *Prawo Ludu*) frequently featured blasphemies against religion, as well as slander and insults directed at the clergy.

Dangerous tendencies also manifested themselves here and there among the rural population; a significant share of the blame for this falls upon Fr. Stanisław Stojałowski—a talented writer for the common people but an unruly priest (19) — as well as the leaders of the peasant movement (20), and especially Jan Stapiński. In the publication *Przyjaciel Ludu* (”Friend of the People”), Stapiński passionately called for a struggle against the clergy, and at a congress in Kraków (in April 1914), he joined forces with Jews, socialists, and radicals to that end. Admittedly, after various of his misdeeds came to light, the majority of his supporters abandoned him and rallied around another peasant publication titled *Piast*; yet this faction, too—led by Witos—proved hostile to the Church, and at the first Polish Sejm in 1919, it aligned itself with the radical Thugut’s club. This should serve as a warning to the clergy to work for and among the people with greater zeal—including in the realm of Catholic social action—for it was only through such work that the people of Greater Poland attained such a high level of religious and national consciousness.

Footnotes:

14. See the same author, Masonrya, 4th edition, Chapter XXIV.

15. See *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, Volumes I, II, and III.

16. The Baptist sect is also trying to push its way into the Poznań region, Silesia, and even Galicia.

17. In recent times, this district has become remarkably well-organized and has achieved significant economic development, largely thanks to such figures as Jackowski (patron of agricultural circles) and Reverends Szamarzewski, Stychel, Piotr Wawrzyniak, Adamski, Zimmermann, Kłos, Laubitz, and others.

18. The free school movement came to us from Vienna.

19. Father Stojałowski submitted to the ruling of the Holy See and was absolved of excommunication in 1911.

20. As early as 1896, the Galician bishops forbade the reading of the popular periodicals *Wieniec*, *Pszczółka*, and *Przyjaciel Ludu*, as well as all socialist publications.

The unfortunate rift between Poles and Ruthenians—which even extended to the ecclesiastical sphere—caused great harm in Galicia.

After 1860, a “Saint George” faction emerged among the Galician Ruthenians—so named because it was led by canons of the Saint George chapter in Lwów. This group set itself the task of purging the Greek Catholic rite of Latin accretions; in doing so, however, it paved the way for Orthodoxy and stoked fierce hatred toward Poles, all while feigning great loyalty to the Austrian government. Disputes erupted between the Polish and Ruthenian clergy—as some Ruthenian priests would, without scruple, draw Latin-rite Catholics into their own rite, causing the Latin Church (and the Polish nation) to lose up to a million souls in Galicia—prompting the Galician bishops of both rites to draft the so-called *Concordia* in Rome. Approved by Pius IX on October 6, 1863, this agreement was intended to prevent further strife, yet failed to do so.

The “St. George’s faction” comprised those Ruthenian priests who, between 1873 and 1875, played the role of Judases to the Diocese of Chełm; having sold themselves to Moscow, they abandoned the heroic people of Podlasie to the mercy of Orthodoxy. The subversive activities of Father Naumowicz and other Galician agitators—manifested in the apostasy of the village of Hniliczki—were curbed by the then-Governor, Count Alfred Potocki, particularly after the removal of the ineffectual Metropolitan of Lwów, Józef Sembratowicz, and the accession of the noble and zealous shepherd Sylwester Sembratowicz to that see (21).

Around 1890, two factions emerged within Ruthenian society: one known as “Old Ruthenian” or “Muscophile,” striving for union with Russia, and the other “Ukrainian,” emphasizing the distinctiveness of the “Ukrainian” nation and even dreaming of a “Greater Ukraine.” Both factions harbored hatred toward Poles, viewing them as alleged oppressors of the Ruthenian people; indeed, it was from the Ukrainian faction that Siczynski—who assassinated Governor Count Andrzej Potocki in 1908 — emerged, an act of political murder subsequently praised by the Ruthenian representatives in the Austrian Imperial Council! This hatred manifested itself in the most heinous manner during the conflict between Ukrainians and Poles (1918–1919), as these imitators of the old Haidamaks committed terrible atrocities not only against prisoners of war and hostages but also against Polish priests and nuns.

In religious matters, Ukrainians reject Orthodox tendencies, yet the helm of this party has been seized by laypeople — among whom are proponents of radicalism and even atheism; indeed, their main publication, *Dilo*, has frequently taken a stand against the Catholic Church and did not shrink from publishing a vile blasphemy against the Most Holy Virgin Mary.

After 1910, overt and vigorous schismatic propaganda emerged within the Russophile faction (22), originating either from Kiev, Pochayiv, and Chełm — where the sons of Russophile clergy and laymen were being trained as Orthodox priests for Galicia—or from Canada and the United States, where a significant number of Ruthenian emigrants had converted to Orthodoxy. The depth of these pernicious currents became evident during the 1914 Lwów trial, and even more so during the war of 1914, when Ruthenians — including, at times, members of the clergy — shamefully betrayed the Austrian monarchy, a state that had treated them with such benevolence. Consequently, following the Russian occupation of Lwów, Governor-General Count Georgy Alexandrovich Bobrinsky was able to officially declare that “the indigenous population of Eastern Galicia and Lemkivshchyna had always been Russian and that it would not tolerate any overt or covert actions against the Orthodox Church”.

Moreover, the Volhynian hierarch Eulogius managed to establish a number of Orthodox parishes in a short time by bringing in priests from Russia and winning over apostates from the Ruthenian clergy—who led some of their parishioners into schism—though they were forced to leave Galicia following the Russian defeat in June 1915 (23). The primary blame for the spread of schismatic tendencies lies with the Ruthenian clergy; instead of zealously fulfilling their pastoral duties and teaching the people about the significance of the Catholic faith and what distinguishes it from Orthodoxy, they plunged headlong into a whirlwind of political agitation.

Regrettably, it was established that during the fierce fighting in Eastern Galicia in 1918 and 1919, some Ruthenian priests openly incited the murder of Poles.

A grave scourge afflicting all Polish lands is the increasingly arrogant and menacing ascendancy of the Jews; not only do they buy up ever-greater amounts of land from large estate owners and peasants (especially in Eastern Galicia) and acquire increasing numbers of houses from townspeople, but—having seized control of the socialist and freethinking movements and formed so-called Zionist associations—they also act with hostility toward Christianity and Polish national identity. Furthermore, the Jews are largely to blame for the persistence of drunkenness in some villages and the spread of demoralization in the cities—a trend significantly fueled by the propaganda of pornography, which they promote. Older youth, in particular, fall victim to this, losing their moral purity and, not infrequently, their character and faith as well.

After the Kingdom of Poland was liberated from the Russian yoke in 1915, the Jews—patronized by the German occupation administration—asserted themselves and demanded, in their platforms, recognition as a distinct nationality and the designation of the Kingdom as a binational and bilingual state, entailing full equal rights for Jews. Naturally, Polish society—despite being highly inclined toward tolerance—would never agree to such excessive demands. Meanwhile, the number of schools using the Yiddish vernacular continues to multiply—a trend accepted even by Warsaw Zionists, provided there is room within the curriculum for the Hebrew language. Jewish separatism and nationalism—supported by both Zionist and Orthodox factions—are emerging ever more boldly in opposition to so-called assimilation with Poles, a concept that, in any case, has few adherents. During the peace negotiations of 1919, Jews harmed Poland in various ways, seeking revenge for the pogroms that were breaking out here and there—events which, needless to say, cannot be condoned; and later, in independent Poland, the situation regarding them would prove difficult: the challenge was to avoid doing them an injustice while simultaneously neutralizing their aspirations, which were hostile to the Polish nation.

Polish society under Russian rule was adversely affected by the Russian spirit—closely linked to Orthodoxy—characterized by: nihilism regarding matters of faith and morals; Byzantinism and absolute dominion on the one hand, and servility and stagnation on the other, in relations between state and church; arbitrariness and exploitation among the rulers, and hypocrisy and bribery among the ruled; and, in literature, sensualism and pessimism alongside anarchism and Tolstoyanism. Under the influence of this spirit—which also found a breeding ground in the Russian school system (24)—and of pernicious currents arriving from the West, new enemies of religion emerged from within Polish society itself. This was particularly the case in the Kingdom of Poland, where the collapse of the 1863 uprising had brought about widespread material impoverishment and a significant weakening of the national spirit. A group of proponents of positivism and evolution—led by Aleksander Świętochowski (25)—stepped onto the scene and began calling, on the one hand, for the abandonment of idealistic and Romantic-chivalric daydreams, and on the other, for the pursuit of positive, empirical knowledge as well as “organic work” to develop trade and industry and thereby increase the nation’s material wealth. It cannot be denied that, as a result of these slogans—which resounded throughout the country after 1870—the natural sciences advanced, technology improved, and many factories sprang up (benefits reaped almost exclusively by foreigners and Jews); yet, at the same time, pernicious trends proliferated—such as disregard for the Catholic faith, the preaching of “liberated morality,” a decline in patriotism, the worship of the golden calf, and a frenzy of hedonism while among workers and the youth, socialism was spreading, and in some areas, hideous banditry emerged (26).

In addition to the materialism prevalent in life, a corrosive influence was exerted by the writings of the so-called decadents and modernists—works that extolled art for art’s sake (art unconstrained by any bonds) and the exploration of the “naked soul”; the apotheosis of passion and sin; independent ethics and women’s emancipation; the philosophy of pessimism and Nietzsche’s “Übermensch”; extreme realism and a “delightful” wallowing in the mire; as well as blasphemy, shamelessness (27), and lewdness. The strongest and most pernicious influence came from Stanisław Przybyszewski—an ardent admirer of Nietzsche’s philosophy and of contemporary French, German, and Scandinavian literature—who boldly proclaimed in his novels that art and literature should remain aloof from the national cause, and that the source of existence and of art is lewd lust (28). He found many imitators; and the licentiousness of literature was followed—particularly in Warsaw—by a profound corruption of morals.

From soil thus cultivated sprang the ugliest weed of all: open atheism, propagated notably in the periodical *Myśl Niepodległa* [Independent Thought] by Andrzej Niemojewski—translator of Renan’s *Life of Jesus* and author of the blasphemous *Legends* and the godless book *God Jesus* (1909), in which he argues that Jesus Christ never existed at all, and that the story of His life, death, and resurrection is a reflection of astral mysteries—specifically those of the Babylonian Tammuz and the Syrian Adonis. On November 7, 1907, he issued a call: “Let us cease being rebellious Catholics and instead establish our own ‘free community’—naturally, one devoid of dogmas and Christian ethics.” He was joined by a handful of atheists—Poles—and the “League of Polish Freethought,” founded by Warsaw Jews. It is claimed that, under this banner, Freemasonry once again infiltrated Polish soil and established its lodges in Warsaw.

Footnotes:

21. He was made a cardinal in 1895 but died as early as 1898. Cf. *Pius IX and His Pontificate* by the same author, Vol. III, Ch. X.

22. Until 1913, the party’s organ was *Hałyczanin*; subsequently, publications reflecting its outlook included *Prykarpackaja Ruś*, *Gołos Narodu*, *Russkaja Wolja*, *Russkaja Rada*, *Swoboda*, and *Hromadzkij Hołos*, alongside the socialist periodicals *Wpierod* and *Zemla i Wola*. Cf. *Gazeta Kościelna*, “Podłoże prawosławia w Galicyi” (The Basis of Orthodoxy in Galicia), 1912.

23. Cf. by the same author: *A Call to Work for the Spiritual Rebirth of the Polish Nation*. 4th ed., Przemyśl, p. 36.

24. Following the promulgation of the Constitution in 1905, a considerable number of private schools were established in the Kingdom, from which misguided individuals sought to eliminate religious instruction.

25. Cf. Teodor Jeske-Choiński, *W pogoni za prawdą* [In Pursuit of Truth], Series 5, p. 14 et seq.

26. Banditry emerged in 1905 with the outbreak of revolutionary movements instigated by the so-called “fighting squads,” a situation exacerbated by the Russian police, who were incompetent and often colluded with the bandits. During the war years of 1915–1919, these gangs committed numerous robberies and murders—even though occupation authorities sentenced many of the thugs to death—and the Polish government, too, was unable in 1919 to prevent numerous crimes abetted by Bolshevism.

27. In 1916, over 20,000 prostitutes were counted in Warsaw!

28. Cf. *Przegląd Powszechny*, Vol. XXX, No. 389 (April 1916, p. 192). In addition to Przybyszewski, the following also gained notoriety for writings hostile to Catholic ethics: Aleksander Świętochowski, Andrzej Niemojewski, August Wróblewski, Zenon Przesmycki (Miriam), Ludwik Szczepański, Wacław Berent, Kazimierz Tetmajer, Stefan Żeromski (*Dzieje grzechu* [The Story of a Sin]), Ludwik Gumplowicz, Ignacy Radliński, Józef Wasserzug (Jew), Leon Belmont (Jew), Wilhelm Feldman (Jew; baptized before his death in 1919), Walenty Miklaszewski, Jerzy Kurnatowski, Miłguj-Malinowski, Wojciech Szukiewicz, Bronisław Dybowski, Bronisław Matkowski, Erazm Majewski, Ludwik Krzywicki, Adolf Neuwart-Nowaczyński, Nagórski, Gabriela Zapolska, Iza Moszczeńska, Stefania Bojarska, Maria Walewska (Countess Wielopolska), Cecylia Walewska, Zofia Nałkowska, Alicja Szamota—Stefania Sempołowska Budzińska— (Tylicka, Daszyńska-Golińska, et al.; cf. Teodor Jeske-Choiński, *Przegląd Powszechny*, June 1916, p. 216 et seq.) They were aided by apostates from the clergy, most notably A. Wysłouch (Szech), who—having abandoned the Capuchin Order and the Catholic faith (in 1908)—fiercely called for a struggle against the Catholic Church and advocated religious indifferentism (and thus atheism) in his vitriolic writings (such as *Why I Summon You to Judgment*, *Catholicism and Polishness*, and *The Religion of Humanity*). Socialist writings echo this same sentiment. In the most recent novels, however, a love for the homeland is once again making itself strongly felt.

Certain progressive associations—such as the *Zaraniarze*, the Society for Culture, and the Staszic Agricultural Circles—also exerted a harmful influence; although intended to foster patriotism and popular education, they instead propagated irreligion. Their publications—including *Kultura Polska*, *Odrodzenie*, *Nowe Tory*, *Zaranie*, *Społeczeństwo*, and *Młot*—operated in the same spirit.

Unfortunately, a significant portion of older students and teachers adopted this anti-religious outlook, as became evident during teachers’ congresses in Radom (1916) and Warsaw (1919).

Moreover, socialism took hold of the majority of workers, severely demoralizing them, while Mariavitism—discussed further below—began to infiltrate rural communities here and there. The devastation in the religious sphere would have been even greater had not zealous bishops and priests—who also expanded their activities into the realm of ecclesiastical literature—stemmed the tide of these harmful currents (29).

In the political and social spheres, the years 1905 to 1908 marked the bleakest period in the history of the Kingdom of Poland; it was an era characterized by attacks orchestrated by four socialist parties under Jewish leadership (30)—bloody riots and street murders, frequent death sentences handed down by Russian courts, incessant factory strikes, and harsh bureaucratic oppression, notwithstanding the constitutional manifesto of October 30, 1905. — and, finally, the fragmentation of Polish society into various factions (31) and the prevalence of heinous banditry. In early 1909, the eminent writer Bolesław Prus (Głowacki) aptly characterized this era: “Our policy to date, during the period of the Russian constitution, can be defined in a few words: externally—disaster, disaster, disaster; and internally—chaos, chaos, chaos.”

XI. The Great War of 1914–1918 brought immense suffering upon the Polish nation—witnessed by the ruins of demolished churches, towns, villages, schools, and manor houses; by the blood of so many sons of the Polish soil shed on battlefields; and by the tens of thousands of refugees deported to Russia or wandering in foreign lands. Yet, it seems this suffering was necessary so that the scale of God’s mercy might outweigh the scale of God’s justice, and so that the hour of resurrection might finally strike for the Polish nation.

Amidst these sufferings, what was it that primarily uplifted and comforted aching hearts? It was the Catholic religion, for it instilled patience and hope in them by pointing to God’s constant care over our nation. Fresh proof of this care was the liberation of the Kingdom and Lithuania from the Russian yoke (1915), followed by the ignominious fall of the Tsarist regime (1917) and the terrible rout of that arrogant power—which had already regarded Galicia as its prize and dreamed of Constantinople. For who cannot see that a Russian victory would have meant the triumph of Orthodox Pan-Slavism and the chaining of Poland to Russia’s chariot, while spelling disaster for the Catholic Church and the subjugation of the Slavic world?

And who cannot also see God’s providence over our nation in the fact that the successors of those rulers who had partitioned Poland—Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary and Wilhelm of Germany—decided in 1916 to restore its independent existence and royal crown, thereby transforming the Polish cause—previously considered all but buried—into a matter of European significance; and furthermore, that these two mighty powers were defeated in 1918 and forced to sue for peace, whereupon the Coalition (the opposing belligerent side) recognized Poland as an independent and united state, a recognition also extended by Pope Benedict XV and certain neutral nations.

Moreover, Divine Providence also sent us numerous comforts during the war. One such source of comfort was the loving compassion shown to Poland by the Holy Father Benedict XV—whether in his apostolic letters to the Archbishop of Gniezno and Poznań, Edward Likowski (dated February 1, 1915), and to the Polish bishops in Galicia (dated December 10, 1915) (32); or in the correspondence from Cardinal Secretary of State Gasparri to Henryk Sienkiewicz, president of the General Committee for Relief to War Victims in Vevey (dated March 18, 1915) (33), and to the Prince-Bishop of Kraków, Adam Stefan Sapieha (dated April 25, 1918); or in the dispatch of 35,000 francs for the most destitute in Polish lands, followed by 300,000 for Polish children; or in the call for Catholic nations to offer prayers and donations for Poland (34); or in the sending to Poland in 1918 of Monsignor Ratti as Apostolic Visitor (35)—or in the recognition of the independent Polish state (1918), and in 1919, in the elevation of two Polish bishops (Archbishop Dalbor and Archbishop Rakowski) to the rank of Cardinal.

A source of such comfort was the sympathy of civilized nations—especially Catholic ones—shown to Poland through words and writings, as well as through prayers and gifts of money (36), clothing, and food.

A source of such comfort is the growth of self-sacrifice and patriotism within Polish society, evidenced by the activities of episcopal relief committees linked to the central committee in Kraków, as well as by the raising of the Polish Legions—later renowned for their valor on so many battlefields—and the heroic defense of Lwów against the Ukrainians. Admittedly, even after the war—in 1919—the Polish nation endured severe tribulations: the errors of the Polish government (37), the clashes within the first Legislative Sejm (38), and the vices degrading Polish society—specifically the exploitation by profiteers, the bandit-like assaults and robberies, the machinations of Jews against Poland, the difficulties with the Coalition during peace negotiations, the shortages in urban food supplies, and, finally, the struggles against the cruel Ukrainians, or against the Czechs and Russian Bolsheviks, for the state’s borderlands. Yet, amidst these trials, Divine providence watched over the nation, such that we may boldly say: God Himself resurrected Poland.

The aim now is to ensure that spiritual rebirth accompanies political resurrection (39)—that is, to base the new structure upon the unshakable foundation of the Catholic religion; for it safeguards those very pillars without which no state can long endure: namely, private and public morality; respect for law, authority, and property; and a spirit of discipline, harmony, and concern for the common good. If a state as powerful as France fell into grave illness because—under the influence of Freemasonry and radicalism—it waged war against religion and the Church while opening the gates to godlessness and corruption, what would become of the Polish nation, already so greatly weakened, were it to lack that life-giving strength provided by the Catholic religion?

XII. Let all, then, humble themselves before this religion, in such a way that every Pole—in accordance with the testament of Jan Zamoyski—might worship God, cherish piety, steadfastly defend the faith, and guard against schism and new doctrines, while rejoicing above all in being a son of that magnificent mother, the Catholic Church—a universal mother not only to kings and lords but, most importantly, to so many of the Lord’s saints (40).

Footnotes:

29. Namely, the publication of the *Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia* (by Fr. Michał Nowotarski) and other useful works. (Cf. the same author’s *Pius IX and Poland*.)

30. These parties are: 1) the Polish Socialist Party (PPS), 2) the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SD), 3) the Proletariat, and 4) the Bund. It was from these groups that the “fighting squad” emerged—a force that, in turn, contributed to the outbreak of banditry.

31. To defend the faith and the Christian order, the “Catholic Union for the Kingdom of Poland” was established in 1901; however, the Russian government dissolved individual associations and shut down community centers and parish libraries. A grievous blow was the heinous crime committed at Jasna Góra by the Pauline monk Damazy Macoch—an incident exploited with utter duplicity by the enemies of religion, particularly the socialists.

32. In this letter—which was a response to a communication from the Polish bishops of the Austrian partition, dated September 20, 1915—these words appear: “For a long time, a truly special love for your nation has dwelt in my soul—a love that is growing in a remarkable way now, at the sight of the numerous and grievous misfortunes that have all but crushed you as a result of this war.”

33. In this document, Cardinal Gasparri speaks of the Holy Father in these terms: “For he sees in the beloved Poles not merely a noble nation—unfortunately plunged into despair and misfortune—but recognizes and loves in them his own sons: sons who are especially devoted to him, incomparably noble, and bound to the Apostolic See with a loyalty that extends to the point of self-sacrifice.”

34. In accordance with the wishes of the Holy Father, the Polish bishops of the three regions addressed a letter on August 15, 1915, to the bishops of the Catholic world, asking them to order prayers and collections for Poland on Sunday, November 21, 1915.

35. On July 17, 1918, in Kielce, Prelate Achille Ratti recounted that when he presented the difficulties of his assigned mission to the Holy Father, Benedict XV, he heard these words from him: “Do not fear difficulties; after all, you are going to a nation where faith holds the primary place and which ranks first among nations for its widespread religiosity—*Polonia semper fidelis*. You are going to a martyr nation that has shed so much blood for faith and freedom; you are going to a nation that today, like Lazarus, is rising from the grave to a new life, and although it still wears its burial shrouds, it is no longer in the grave.” In 1918, Monsignor Ratti became the Apostolic Nuncio to Poland.

36. The Polish General Committee in Vevey, Switzerland, raised over 17 million crowns. Significant quantities of food also arrived from America, and even from Denmark and Switzerland.

37. Following the resignation of the Regency Council (comprising Archbishop Aleksander Kakowski, Prince Zdzisław Lubomirski, and Józef Ostrowski), General Józef Piłsudski assumed supreme authority over a united Poland—as the former regions of Galicia and Poznań had cast off the foreign yoke—and appointed a radical-socialist government led by Moraczewski; this administration, however, was forced to step down after just two months in favor of Paderewski’s moderate government.

38. At the parliamentary session in July 1919, a resolution was passed to seize and parcel out land belonging to the Church, albeit subject to prior agreement with the Holy See; the Peasant Party demonstrated its hostility toward the Church in this matter.

39. Conferences of Polish bishops, held in Warsaw (1917 and 1918) and Gniezno (1919), deliberated on this matter.

40. The Life of Jan Zamoyski by Rajnold Heidenstein, translated into Polish by Franciszek Bohomolec. Edited by M. Dzieduszycki. *Ojczyzna*. Lwów, 1867.

We must hold fast to this religion not merely because it is a legacy of ages past and a part of our spiritual heritage—or because it has become intertwined with our national life (41)—but above all because it is divine, universal, and immutable, and because it bestows life upon both individuals and nations, thereby rising above the fleeting currents of politics. Let it, then, be the foremost and most cherished treasure for all, and let no one use it as an instrument for earthly ends; let everyone live by faith, conscientiously observing all divine and ecclesiastical commandments, and indeed regard themselves as an apostle of the faith, contributing to the best of their ability to ensure that the entire nation remains—now and always—faithful to the Catholic Church and the Holy See.

And what must be done to sustain and strengthen the religious spirit within the nation?

Earnest efforts must be made to ensure that the Catholic religion—enjoying complete freedom—exerts its beneficial influence upon every aspect of private and public life, upon all state laws and social institutions; in short, that it serves as the foundation of the nation’s and the state’s existence. This was also the subject of deliberation by Polish bishops at conferences held in Warsaw in 1917, 1918, and 1919, and in Gniezno in 1919.

Efforts must be made to ensure that the clergy—enlightened and holy—labor zealously in the church, the school, and the social sphere, drawing their own strength from well-organized seminaries, retreats, and synods; and likewise, that religious and blameless individuals—committed to the common good—find their way into legislative assemblies, councils, public offices, and the teaching profession.

Family life must be nurtured, strengthened, and sanctified.

Home and school education must be improved and perfected in accordance with Catholic principles, for Adam Mickiewicz rightly said: “To the extent that you improve souls, you will expand the borders of Poland.”

It is necessary to uplift all social classes in terms of education, morality, patriotism, prosperity, and culture, imbuing them all with the Catholic spirit, while extending special care to those strata that have previously been neglected and are most at risk.

It is necessary to establish and effectively manage Catholic associations, sodalities, and confraternities.

It is necessary to create, support, and disseminate good newspapers and books.

It is necessary to be vigilant against the infiltration of harmful currents into Polish society and, should they appear, to combat them wisely and steadfastly in every sphere (42).

Above all, we must implore God for light, strength, and a blessing for the nation, and entrust our prayers to the Most Holy Virgin, Queen of the Polish Crown, trusting that just as she brought heavenly aid to the nation during the Swedish invasions, so too—both today and in the future—she will enfold it in the mantle of her protection (43).

The Catholic religion has brought—and continues to bring—invaluable benefits to other nations as well; indeed, anyone wishing to detail them would have to write entire volumes.

One might assume, then, that this religion is an object of reverence and love for everyone; yet, such is not the case. There are people—including within Polish society—for whom the Catholic religion is a matter of indifference; there are even those who reject it entirely and oppose it with hostility. What is the reason for this? Let us consider the causes of this lamentable phenomenon.

Footnotes:

41. Shallow thinkers are attracted to the idea of ​​a Polish national church; yet a national or state church is a wretched caricature of the Church, for it serves as a tool for political factions or secular authority. Would they take to heart the words of that distinguished patriot, Prince Adam Czartoryski: “Catholicism should not stem from love of country, but patriotism from love of God.”

42. Cf. by the same author: *Call to Work for the Spiritual Rebirth of the Polish Nation*. 3rd ed., p. 21.

43. With this in mind, the Polish bishops decided to organize a national pilgrimage to Częstochowa to celebrate the bicentenary of the coronation of the Jasna Góra image of the Most Holy Mary, Queen of the Polish Crown.

I. Man is a religious being; he therefore needs an institution that would proclaim to him God’s truth and God’s law, point out the way to God, provide spiritual assistance, and facilitate the fulfillment of the most important duty—that of rendering worship to God; and this institution is the spiritual community, or the Catholic Church. Moreover, man is a social being; he therefore needs an institution that would provide him with a proper upbringing, define a certain measure of rights and duties, oversee their observance, and thereby safeguard external order; and this institution is the secular community, which has the family as its foundation and the state as the pinnacle of its structure. Each of these two communities has its own distinct sphere, its own aims, and its own means; yet, although one is independent of the other regarding this sphere, nevertheless, in accordance with the will. There should be a close harmony between them, such that each needs the other and supports the other.

Christ the Lord Himself, in His reply to Pilate, affirmed that He is a King, but that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36–37); He also upheld the independence of spiritual authority by commanding obedience to the Church and warning the disobedient: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). On the other hand, He commanded that one render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matt. 22:21) and Himself paid the tax to the Roman ruler.

This demarcation of spiritual authority from temporal authority—virtually unknown in the ancient world, given that the Roman emperor also held the title of *Pontifex Maximus* (”Supreme Priest”)—was a great boon to humanity, for it established religious freedom, which is essential for both individuals and the Church.

II. And what constitutes the respective spheres of spiritual and temporal authority? Pope Leo XIII defined this aptly in his encyclical of November 1, 1885, noting that everything sacred on any grounds—everything that, by its very nature or purpose, relates to the salvation of souls and the service of God—falls under spiritual authority; whereas matters pertaining to the civil and political order belong to temporal authority. Leaving aside other questions, let us now consider the extent to which the spiritual community is necessary for the secular one, and what the Catholic religion contributes to the state (1).

III. That no society can exist without religion in general is a fact acknowledged by all lawmakers and founders of states, whose primary endeavor was to incline the peoples subject to them toward reverence for and obedience to the Deity. This was the aim not only of Moses—divinely inspired as he was—but also, as history attests, of Lycurgus in Sparta, Draco and Solon in Athens, Pythagoras in Croton, Archytas in Tarentum, Numa in Rome, Confucius in China, Manco Cápac in Peru, Muhammad in Arabia, and even Genghis Khan in Tartary 2). Moreover, Plutarch asserts that it would be easier to found a city without land than to establish a society after completely eradicating the conviction that God exists (adv. Colot. Epicur.).

Philosophers hold the same conviction; indeed, Aristotle regards divine worship as the first of the six principal matters without which a state cannot exist, and the priestly class as the foremost in the state (3). Modern thinkers—even those hostile to the Catholic religion—concur with this view; one of them, Hume, boldly states: “Seek out a people without religion; if you find one, rest assured that it differs little from base animals” (4). “There has never been a nation,” says Rousseau, “that did not have religion as its foundation” (5).

Footnotes:

1. Regarding the issues raised in this chapter, see: Balmes, *El protestantismo...* Vol. 3 (French translation); Ventura, *Il potere politico cristiano* and *Saggio sul potere pubblico* (Milan, 1859; also in French translation); Moulart, *L’Église et l’État* (2nd ed., 1879); Perin, *Les lois de la société chrétienne*; Landriot, *Autorité et liberté*; Constant, *Papież i wolność* [The Pope and Liberty] (translated from French by Count Bronisław Lasocki); Cardinal Giuseppe Pecci, *Kościół i cywilizacja* [Church and Civilization] (translated from Italian by Fr. Kalinka); Hettinger, *Apologie des Christentums*, Vol. II, Book III, Section 19, Lecture; Jos. Hergenröther, *Katholische Kirche und christlicher Staat* (Freiburg, 1872); Bishop J. Chr. Janiszewski, *Kościół i państwo* [Church and State].

2. Memorable are the words Napoleon I spoke to the parish priests in Milan (June 5, 1805): “Convinced that the Roman Catholic religion is the only one capable of bringing happiness to any well-ordered society and strengthening the foundations of any good government, I assure you that I shall always, and by all means within my power, protect and defend this religion.” (Tassoni, *La religion démontrée et défendue*, Vol. II, p. 37).

3. This belief was so widespread in antiquity that, as Aelian writes (*Var. Hist.* lib. 9 cap. 12), the Messenians—having learned from experience that Epicureans corrupted the youth and demoralized society with their ways and their atheism—expelled them from their territory and ordered the city to be purified after their departure.

4. Historia ‎natural‎ ‎de‎ ‎la‎ ‎Ed.‎ ‎p.‎ ‎133

5. In 1880, an attempt was made in America to establish a settlement called Liberal, composed entirely of atheists, but it met a dismal end. Phalansteries—socialist communes devoid of religion and private property—also failed.

Indeed, the facts bear this out. For when faith in the Divine fell into disrepute among the Romans and Epicureanism corrupted their morals, that mighty empire rapidly declined and collapsed like a rotted tree. Likewise, when the architects of the French Revolution sought to base the new republic on atheism, they unleashed torrents of blood and left France a landscape of ruins.

This is hardly surprising, for the foundation of a well-ordered state rests upon respect for authority, law, duty, and liberty—kept within proper bounds—as well as justice for all, public morality, the common good, private property, family life, and social order; and it is religion that stands guard over this foundation.

Let us consider a few details.

IV. No community—whether in its nascent stage as a family or in its developed form as a state—can exist without authority; yet authority cannot be sustained if it relies solely on force and fear rather than on a moral foundation. The Catholic religion provides precisely such a foundation. For it teaches that, whatever the form of government—monarchy or republic—the authority held by the ruler comes from God (6); that is, it is an extension of the Supreme Authority and must be exercised in accordance with Its commands—namely, the law of God. It teaches that “there is no authority except from God” (7), and that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God”; and that monarchs—and heads of state in general—are servants of God who govern in God’s name and are accountable [to Him] before God—that human law must always conform to divine law—that obedience to legitimate authority is a religious duty — that the spiritual authority of the Church must be respected within the scope assigned to it by divine institution—in short, that one must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s. In this way, religion lends higher sanction to authority, reinforces the gravity of the law, sanctifies obedience, safeguards the lives of rulers, curbs the unrest and rebellions of subjects, supports governments in the struggle against anarchic individualism, and stands guard over order and peace. The contributions of the Christian religion and the Catholic Church in this sphere have been acknowledged even by non-Catholic writers, such as Guizot and others.

Even during the first three centuries, while the Christian religion was still subject to persecution, its influence on pagan society—and even on certain emperors and philosophers—was already evident; this influence intensified immensely following the Edict of Milan in 313, to the point where certain laws enacted by Constantine the Great or Theodosius I (such as those concerning slaves) bear a distinctly Christian imprint. The unwise policies of emperors who too readily meddled in religious affairs and championed the cause of heretics, combined with barbarian invasions and dire economic and social conditions, brought about the ruin of the Roman state, yet they did not halt the Church’s mission. On the contrary, the Church undertook the monumental task of converting the barbarian peoples—whether pagan or infected by Arianism — to establish new Christian states—whether Romance, Germanic, or otherwise. In the Middle Ages—particularly following the restoration of the Roman Empire in the year 800—the concept of the Christian state reached its zenith; it was then that the harmony between spiritual and secular authority was at its closest, and the Church’s influence—even in political matters—was greatest, to the extent that popes, in accordance with the prevailing view of the time, bestowed crowns, mediated interstate disputes, and deposed rulers, striking them with ecclesiastical excommunication for disobedience or the violation of Church rights.

That this is where fights have often arisen, which are also harmful to the Church, and that in these ‎fights‎ the ‎clerical authority ‎sometimes made a mistake or overreached, ‎denied, ‎can’t be done, ‎because errare‎ Humanum est (”to err is human”), and the privilege of papal infallibility applies only to science, faith, and ecclesiastical customs, and not to secular matters. No, but it can be considered as the truth everything written by some historians, especially Protestant ones, who look at the history of the Church through the prism of reluctance or prejudice, because there is a lot of falsehood or exaggeration (8), as Conscientious research by other historians has shown this.

It is certain that the Church has contributed not only to the creation and development of countries. at that time, but also to improve law, both civil and national, to develop civilization Christian, for the consolidation of public peace and for the fraternization of peoples as members of one great family Christian, whose father was the Pope.

But this sublime idea of the state and Christian law had already come across in the Middle Ages. against the opposition, as a result of the actions of those in power who resisted the clerical authority, or even They violated her rights; and worse relations occurred after the so-called Reformation, because not only the monarchs Protestants, but also some Catholics (such as Emperor Joseph II) tried to control the ‎spiritual sphere ‎ and ‎rule‎ in the Church; ‎ which ‎also‎ were authorized by the ‎currents‎ of ‎Gallicanism‎ at that time ‎and ‎Febronianism.

The 19th century finally produced a liberal and interfaith state that included all denominations. How much are they compatible with its laws, on an equal basis, and even a non-denominational state? Which of all its institutions eliminates the influence of religion, and how it is usually said, ‎secularizes, this is a “de-Christianization” of society. This has led in some countries to the separation of the Church and state, and even to open persecution of the Church.

Has humanity benefited from this and will irreligion bring about its golden age? If we remove religion, we will probably need draconian laws to keep people in check; then the place of churches will be taken by prisons, the place of priests, the police, the place of justice and terrorism! But this will not help, because when the passions run wild, they will throw off the self-imposed yoke and let go. There was a bloody dance. The world had already seen a similar spectacle many times before.

No sooner had Luther issued his thunderous proclamations against ecclesiastical and secular rule (9) than fanatical crowds—having renounced obedience to all authority—began demolishing castles and plundering churches. The eighteenth century witnessed an even worse experience. For the so-called philosophers unleashed theories upon the world asserting that all power originates with the people and is transferred to the ruler by virtue of a contract—that the ruler is merely the executor of the people’s will and may be toppled from the throne at any moment (Rousseau)—that to be happy, one need acknowledge no master (Voltaire)—and that there would be no good on earth until the last king was hanged by the entrails of the last priest (Diderot). And soon it was proven that he who sows the wind shall reap a storm, for the revolution—like a destructive hurricane—overthrew the throne and altar and placed power in the hands of cruel tribunes who, like hyenas, gorged themselves on the blood of France (10).

While the revolution was indeed defeated, its principles persisted in society as agents of dissolution; under their influence, authority increasingly lost the respect it commanded, and the law lost its gravity. Although liberalism sought to preserve a measure of public order and constitutional monarchies, socialism—being more consistent in its logic—declared through the voice of Bebel in the German parliament (December 31, 1881) that its political aim was a republic; meanwhile, anarchism—going even further—sought to overthrow even constitutional governments in order to build a great communist republic upon their ruins, or, following Bakunin, to shatter society into independent communes linked only loosely to one another. The Paris Commune of 1871 and the Russian revolution of 1917 demonstrated what the world would look like under such conditions of the Bolsheviks.

The creation of non-religious republics—and a federation thereof—is also an ideal of Freemasonry (11); yet this will not come to pass without great upheavals. Frequent coups and assassination attempts against rulers (12)—these are the precursors to a cataclysm threatening the world. It is hardly surprising, then, that terrified monarchs cry out: “The people must not be deprived of religion” (13), regarding it as their final palladium.

Footnotes:

6. Even in times of persecution, the faithful did not take up arms against their persecutors, and Saint Justin could boldly say: “Where is there any shadow or semblance of rebellion among those who honor monarchs as visible images of God, as consecrated guardians of the law, and as shepherds of the people?” (Apol. 2). Later, in the Middle Ages, when the Parisian doctor John Petit put forward the thesis that it is permissible to kill a tyrant, the Council of Constance condemned it, and Martin V confirmed this censure.

7. Romans 13:1.

8. Read: Die Geschichtsliigen Paderborn 1902 17 Aufl. Papsttfabeln i Jesuitenfabeln.

9. On the other hand, Luther demanded absolute obedience to authority—”for where there is power, there is also right.”

10. In his history of the French Revolution, Prof. W. L. Swiths provides the following figures: 2,048 nobles were condemned, along with 13,623 individuals of non-noble origin, 350 nuns, 1,467 women, and 1,134 priests; the Revolutionary Tribunal handed down 22,352 death sentences. In the Vendée, the Revolution claimed 937 victims. In Nantes, the Convention commissioner Carrier executed 32 people, and in Lyon, 31,000. According to this list, the total number of victims stands at 1,040,792. It should be noted that this figure does not represent the total number of victims, but refers only to those for whom official records could be gathered.

11. Cf. the same author’s *Masonerya*, 4th ed., Chapter IV.

12. Perhaps never before had there been as many assassination attempts as in the second half of the 19th century. We need only recall the repeated attempts on the lives of Napoleon III, Wilhelm I, Alexander II, Alexander III, Franz Joseph I, Umberto I, Alfonso XII, Charles III of Parma, French President Sadi Carnot, and the Austrian Empress Elisabeth. The 20th century witnessed anarchist assassination attempts against Edward VII of England, French President Loubet, Alfonso XIII of Spain (1906), Carlos I of Portugal (1908), Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (1912), and Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian heir to the throne (1914), as well as the execution by shooting of the former Tsar Nicholas II (1918).

13. Emperor Wilhelm I in 1878, following the assassination attempts by Hödel and Nobiling.

V. On the other hand, the Catholic Church does not tie itself to any particular form of government, for—as Pius X stated in a letter to the French bishops dated August 25, 1910—”its wings are broad enough to shelter both monarchy and democracy, provided they respect the faith, uphold morality, and seek justice.” Nor is the Catholic religion an advocate of despotism and oppression; after all, it constantly reminds rulers that they must exercise their authority in accordance with God’s law and act as fathers to the people rather than tyrants; it also defines the limits of their sphere, forbidding them to interfere in spiritual matters or to oppress consciences. Montesquieu himself acknowledged this salutary influence: “Religion is the only curb for those who do not fear human laws and who even deem themselves above all law” (14); and again: “A monarch who hates religion but fears it is like a chained beast that can do no harm. If, however, he rejects religion, he becomes a bloodthirsty monster, knowing no other limit to his destructiveness than the whim of his own passions” (15). There was no lack of such tyrants, even in the Christian era, yet the Catholic Church always stood in defense of violated divine law and oppressed peoples.

Moreover, while demanding obedience to authority, the Catholic religion simultaneously commands respect for freedom within the limits set by divine law; indeed, it proclaims through the words of Saint Paul: “We are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman—with the freedom by which Christ has set us free” (16).

Indeed, Christ the Lord sets us free—first, from ignorance and error, for through His Church He gives us God’s truth and assures us: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32); and secondly, from passions and sin, for likewise through the Church He proclaims His holy law to us, commands us to fight against base desires, to deny ourselves, and to strive for perfect virtue, while supporting us in this struggle and labor with His teaching and God’s grace. Therefore, whoever believes and lives a truly Catholic life is truly free.

In addition to individual freedom—which was granted to all people, including slaves—Christ the Lord brought religious freedom, or freedom of conscience; for He commanded that what belongs to God be rendered unto God and established a spiritual community—His Church—which, by divine institution, possesses its own organization, laws, treasures, independence, and mission, that mission being the glorification of God and the salvation of souls. Christ the Lord promised this Church His abiding presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and the ceaseless aid of the Holy Spirit—that is, the gift of infallibility; He lives within it and acts through it, and thus He rightly demands freedom for it from the State and obedience from the faithful, so that it may fulfill its mission.

The Catholic Church, conscious of the rights and duties bestowed upon it by its Divine Founder, has always demanded religious freedom—specifically, for its hierarchy, the freedom to teach, to conduct public worship, to exercise legislative and judicial authority within its own sphere, to dispense grace, to govern souls, and to acquire temporal goods for the support of the clergy, churches, and the poor; and for the faithful, the freedom to profess their faith and fulfill their religious obligations. When pagan emperors acted as persecutors of Christians, the Church protested with the blood of martyrs; and when, in later times, Christian rulers curtailed religious freedom—brazenly trampling upon the Church’s rights, seizing its assets, imprisoning its ministers, or even abetting heresy or schism—that protest was accompanied by anathema and other... ecclesiastical penalties. Although the Church has always been an advocate for peace, it was nonetheless compelled at times to engage in conflict so as not to betray its mission; for what would have become of its freedom had the popes not stood up against certain Byzantine emperors, and later against monarchs such as Henry IV, Frederick I, Frederick II, Philip IV, Napoleon I, and the German Emperor Wilhelm I during the *Kulturkampf*, and so forth?

Political and civil liberty must go hand in hand with religious liberty. Christ the Lord did not interfere in political affairs, nor did He prescribe any specific form of government; yet, while on the one hand He commanded that what belongs to Caesar be rendered to Caesar, on the other He also imposed obligations upon those who rule others, requiring that the leader act as a servant (Luke 22:26)—that is, that he strive for the good of their subjects; and in the event of a conflict between divine law and human law, the Apostles proclaimed the command: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). History bears witness that the Church, faithful to these commands, always respected the authority and rights of Christian monarchs, yet did not remain silent whenever one of them trampled upon divine and ecclesiastical laws, engaged in tyranny, or oppressed his people. In such cases, after fruitless admonitions, the ban of excommunication would descend from the heights of the Rock of Peter, and sometimes this excommunication was accompanied by deposition from the throne. Was this an abuse of power? No; for firstly, the popes had the right to punish their disobedient sons, and secondly, because “moral authority — in accordance with the public law then in force and reflecting the sentiment of the entire Christian populace—acted...” popes as the supreme judges of all matters within Christendom, extending even to adjudicating the fates of kings, states, and nations” (17). There were also instances where popes defended rulers against subjects who were instigating riots and rebellions. In this way, the Church safeguarded political and civil liberty, and—through its institutions, specifically synods—even contributed to the development of so-called constitutionalism (18).

Footnotes:

14. Esprit‎ ‎des‎ ‎lois‎ ‎L.‎ ‎24‎ ‎Ch.‎ ‎2.

15. Ibid. Voltaire expressed a similar view: “If atheism were to take hold of the minds of rulers, it would be tantamount to being under the direct dominion of those infernal spirits said to tear their victims apart with fury.” (Homilies on Atheism).

16. To Galat. IV. 31.

17. Words of Pius IX spoken on July 20, 1871, to the Catholic Academy. Cf. Constant, *The Pope and Liberty*, p. 233.

18. “Religion,” said the famous Laboulaye, “is the supreme political factor, the sole foundation of states” (La liberté religieuse, Paris 1858). Cf. Constant, *The Pope and Liberty* (Polish translation, 1878).

It is not true, therefore, that liberty descended to earth only with the French Revolution; indeed, that revolution—having swept away glaring abuses in a burst of noble zeal—subsequently became guilty of the most shameful tyranny. Its heir became the modern French Republic, which, under the sway of Freemasonry and socialism and in the name of liberty, enacted the separation of Church and State in 1905—thereby curtailing the Church’s freedom, impoverishing the clergy, and banishing religion from public and social life. Socialism pursues this same goal, should it ever succeed in establishing its own state.

Nor is anti-Christian liberalism a friend of liberty; it strikes the shackles from the hands of criminals only to place them upon bishops and priests—it builds improved prisons while disbanding religious orders—it establishes schools yet expels the very name of God from them or restricts religious instruction; in short, in the name of progress, it commits acts of violence and lawlessness. Pius IX rightly branded such a conception of liberty as shameful hypocrisy (19) and later condemned Prussian Caesarism, which, during the so-called *Kulturkampf*, sought to crush the Catholic Church and establish a national church through the so-called Old Catholics. How great is the gratitude owed to the Popes for condemning despotism and state omnipotence while defending authority — and for condemning political anarchy while defending liberty — and social.

VI. Similarly, true brotherhood and just equality are the fruits of the Catholic religion. Christ the Lord Himself brought them to earth, proclaiming that all people, as children of the Heavenly Father, are brothers to one another—that after the love of God, the greatest commandment is the love of one’s neighbor—that one’s neighbor is every human being, however lowly or unfortunate — and that the greater a person is, the more deeply he ought to humble himself and the more good he ought to do. The Catholic Church received the further mission of regenerating society in the spirit of humility, love, and Christian equality; and indeed, through its labors and by God’s grace, it regenerated humanity, creating a new society characterized by virtues previously almost unknown—among which mercy toward the lowly and the unfortunate shines with particular brilliance. Admittedly, this Church... It does not declare war on the powerful and the wealthy, as socialism does; nor does it abolish social orders or strip away rightfully acquired rights, as revolution does. Yet, on the other hand, it condemns arrogance, rebukes injustice, and proclaims love for all. Just as in the past it seated the senator beside his slave and the patrician beside the poor at the common fraternal feast—the *agape*—so today it bids the king kneel beside the beggar, nourishing both with the same Heavenly Bread and marking both foreheads with the same ashes; thus, even today, it fosters brotherhood and equality in the spirit of God.

In the pagan world, the majority of the population groaned under harsh servitude; indeed, it has been estimated that in the Roman Empire under Augustus, there were up to one hundred million slaves out of a total population of 120 million (20). The lot of a slave in that state was wretched in every respect; he was regarded merely as a thing (*mancipium*) and the absolute property of his master (*dominium*), who held the power of life and death over him—meaning the master could not only sell the slave but also abandon him in sickness or old age, or even subject him to torture and kill him. There was also a law stipulating that if a master was killed by one of his slaves, all the other slaves—with the exception of the sick and the maimed—could be put to death (21). Similarly, among the ancient Germanic peoples, the slave was equated with livestock.

It was the Christian religion that restored to slaves the human dignity previously denied them and extended the commandment of love to include them (22); furthermore, from the very beginning, the Church admitted them to share in spiritual treasures (23), recognized their unions not merely as *contubernia* but as true *matrimonia*, and sought to alleviate their harsh lot (24) by reminding masters of the words of the Apostle Paul—that there is no longer slave or free, but Christ is all and in all (Col. 3:11)—and by encouraging them to manumit their slaves, a practice that indeed occurred quite often. Thus, for example, Hermes, the Prefect of the City of Rome, bestowed freedom and property upon 1,250 slaves alongside whom he had received baptism on a single day. Chromatius, won for Christ by St. Sebastian, acted similarly with 1,400 slaves, saying: “Those who begin to regard God as their Father should not be slaves to man.” We even read that certain members of the clergy—such as Saint Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, and the holy abbot Serapion—sold themselves into slavery to ransom the unfortunate souls held in bondage. Undoubtedly under the influence of the Christian spirit permeating pagan society, the emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Alexander Severus mitigated harsh laws regarding slaves; furthermore, after his conversion, Constantine the Great forbade their crucifixion, equated their intentional killing with other forms of murder, and permitted the clergy to manumit them without the usual formalities.

But why did the Church not immediately proclaim the liberation of slaves? Because doing so would have triggered a severe economic crisis in the Roman state—which lacked a free middle class dedicated to free labor—and might even have incited a slave revolt like the one that broke out in the time of Spartacus. Nevertheless, the Church did not cease to champion the cause of slaves (3), especially after the discovery of the Americas, when the importation of Black Africans began (26). Indeed, Gregory XVI spoke out forcefully against this heinous trade in a brief dated November 3, 1839, citing similar decrees issued by his predecessors (27). Also memorable are the words of Leo XIII, contained in a letter to the Brazilian bishops dated June 5, 1888, as well as the praise he bestowed upon the Sodality of Saint Peter Claver caring for Black people in Africa, headed by Countess Maria Teresa Ledóchowska.

The Catholic Church also operates in the spirit of Christian democracy, for it has sought to bring the upper and lower social strata closer together—an effort that has met with particular success among the secular and monastic clergy. It has also alleviated the often harsh lot of the peasantry—especially when the yoke of serfdom was forced upon them—and today it uplifts the working class as best it can, reminding us that, according to Christian principles, all people—great or small in the eyes of the world—ought to love and support one another as members of a single family, and that the person most worthy of honor is the one who excels in virtue, even if he be a beggar like Saint Benedict Joseph Labre or a shepherdess like Saint Germana Cousin. Humble birth, a lack of formal education or schooling, or even a previously wayward life, poses no obstacle to benefiting from the spiritual goods of the Church, which holds the chalice of salvation for all in its hands and establishes religious orders, confraternities, and associations to facilitate spiritual work.

Footnotes:

19. Allocution of June 9, 1862; Syllabus of 1864.

20. The Athenian state had 365,000 slaves out of a population of 500,000; in Corinth, there were 460,000.

21. See Digest 29.5 (*de senatus consulto Silaniano et Claudiano*). Following the murder of Pedanius Secundus, the Prefect of Rome under Nero, 400 slaves were executed.

22. Cf. the same author’s *Zarys dziejów miłosierdzia w Kościele katolickim* [Outline of the History of Mercy in the Catholic Church], Kraków 1915, pp. 29, 38, 56.

23. They claim that Popes Pius I (reigned 140–150) and Callixtus I (reigned 217–222) rose from a state of slavery. Many martyrs also emerged from that status.

24. Pope Callixtus I issued a decree authorizing marriages between slaves and Roman female citizens.

25. Numerous synods from the 4th century onwards championed the cause of slaves.

26. The contributions of the Dominicans—and especially of the later Bishop Las Casas—are well known here.

27. ...of Pius II of October 7, 1463, of Paul III of May 29, 1537, of Urban VIII of April 22, 1639, of Benedict XIV of December 20, 1741 (Cf. Hettinger, *Apologie des Christenthums*, 22nd Lecture).

The French Revolution, it seems, proclaimed equality and fraternity only to replace the absolutism of the monarchy with the absolutism of demagoguery—using the very same axe to sever everyone’s heads and bestowing the power and wealth of the executed upon those who had previously been nothing; And if it did abolish certain injustices suffered by the lower classes, it did so only in the manner toward which the Catholic religion constantly—albeit slowly—strives (28). Even today, the self-styled apostles of equality and fraternity often enrich themselves at the public expense, indulge in luxury, and trample upon the necks of their fellow citizens as they climb ever higher. After all, that demigod of France, Léon Gambetta (killed in 1882 by his mistress), miraculously transformed from an impoverished lawyer into a millionaire — so much so that he could pay his cook an annual salary of 12,000 francs, a sum greater than what the Republic provided for the maintenance of a bishop.

Similarly, today’s champions of socialism constantly have the welfare of workers on their lips; yet who among them shares their own wealth with their “comrades,” or enters the hovel of a sick pauper to bring aid and relief, as Catholic priests and members of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul do?

Humanity would also be in a sorry state if—in accordance with the wishes of liberalism and Freemasonry — Christian charity toward one’s neighbor were replaced by philanthropy, which is truly akin to moonlight: it illuminates but does not warm. And just how effective such philanthropy is at restraining people from the fury of destruction and murder was demonstrated by the terrible war of 1914–1918.

VII. But someone might object here: If the Catholic religion preaches love for all, why did the Church so often punish heretics with death and allow the persecution of Jews? This is an unfounded charge; for although the Church always defended the integrity of revealed doctrine and regarded heresy as one of the gravest sins, it was nonetheless opposed from the very beginning to the execution of heretics. When the Roman emperors—who, in their pagan days, had styled themselves “Supreme Pontiffs” — embraced the Christian faith, they began to enact harsh laws against heretics, apostates, and sacrilegious persons, proceeding from the principle that if an insult to the imperial majesty warranted severe punishment, then an insult to the Divine Majesty warranted it all the more (29). In the year 382, ​​the death penalty was decreed for Manichaeans, and it was carried out against Priscillianists in 385—an action condemned by some contemporary bishops. History also bears witness to instances where bishops saved heretics from death when the populace turned against them.

When the ancient sect of the Manichaeans—now known as the Albigensians—resurged in Europe during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries and committed grave crimes, they faced opposition not only from popular uprisings but also from governments and church councils—such as the Council of Reims (1049), Toulouse (1119), the Second Lateran Council (1139), the Third Lateran Council (1179), Verona (1184), and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Because the Albigensian sect—which had spread widely, particularly in southern France—threatened the destruction of the Church, the state, and society alike (leading to comparisons with modern-day anarchists and nihilists), defeating them required the use of more powerful measures: specifically, a crusade and harsh laws sentencing obstinate heretics to death. Such laws were enacted by Raymond V, Count of Toulouse, and Peter II, King of Aragon, but especially by Emperor Frederick II—who, despite being a liberal and an enemy of the popes, decreed in 1220 that unrepentant heretics be punished with banishment, infamy, and the confiscation of property, and in constitutions from 1224 and 1232 even prescribed the penalty of burning at the stake. In doing so, he emulated the pagan Emperor Diocletian, who, by a decree of 290, ordered the Prefect of Africa to burn at the stake the leaders of the Manichaean sect — which was infiltrating from Persia—and to execute obstinate adherents of the same by the sword.

And what is to be thought of the ecclesiastical Inquisition—that judicial tribunal established to combat heretics?

As early as 1184, at the Synod of Verona, Pope Lucius III—acceding to the wishes of Frederick I Barbarossa—instituted the episcopal Inquisition, mandating that bishops visit parishes suspected of harboring heresy twice a year; subsequently, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229 required bishops to appoint one priest and two or three laymen in their respective dioceses to identify heretics and report them to both ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Since episcopal courts did not always effectively fulfill this role, beginning in 1232, Gregory IX entrusted the duties of inquisitors to the Dominicans, often assisted by the Franciscans. Thus, alongside the episcopal inquisition, a new “inquisition into heretical depravity” emerged. The handling of heretics was strictly regulated by papal decrees; for instance, Clement IV ruled that the use of torture—employed in secular courts to extract confessions—required the consent of both the inquisitor and the bishop, and that a verdict of condemnation could be issued by the inquisitor only jointly with the bishop (30).

Regarding the heretics under examination, the procedure dictated that those who renounced their errors were fully released after being assigned a penance; only the unrepentant and obstinate were handed over to secular courts, which punished them—in accordance with the laws of Frederick II—by burning them at the stake (31). Who would not admit that the popes, as the supreme guardians of revealed religion and the Christian order in the world, had the right and the duty to establish such a tribunal (32)—and that they are not responsible for the transgressions of certain inquisitors, whom they indeed severely reprimanded whenever complaints arose (33)? Admittedly, punishing obstinate heretics with death seems excessively harsh, or even cruel, today; yet this practice must be judged according to the concepts and circumstances that prevailed at the time. If, in the Middle Ages, arsonists and counterfeiters were condemned to torture and death, how much more heinous must heresy have appeared—viewed as it was as a crime against the Divine Majesty and an assault on the social order. It is in this light, too, that one must view the burning of Hus in the year... 1415.

The Catholic Church did not desire the blood of heretics; thus, when handing them over to the secular authorities, inquisitors would add a plea that their lives be spared (34); and when Louis XIV ordered the Camisards to be exterminated by the sword, Innocent XI wrote to him stating that Jesus Christ by no means advocated such measures and that people should not be dragged into the Church by force. The Church has also consistently condemned dogmatic tolerance—which is nothing other than indifferentism regarding matters of faith, as it places all religions on an equal footing—yet it strove to observe, insofar as was possible, Christian tolerance, which mandates the fulfillment of the obligations of justice and charity toward all. We have seen no such tolerance in Protestant Germany during the Reformation (35) or the 19th-century *Kulturkampf*; nor in Switzerland during the time of Calvin (36) or in the 19th century; nor in England under Henry VIII, Elizabeth, and Cromwell—nor in Russia regarding Polish Catholics or Old Believers; nor in Catholic countries dominated by Masons and radicals (37); to say nothing of the atrocities committed by the Huguenots in France or the Swedes in Catholic Germany.

Footnotes:

28. What kind of friends of the people were the corypheuses of the revolution, the unsuspected positivist presents? ‎Taine‎ in ‎an excellent work‎ ​​‎Les ‎origines ‎de‎ ‎la‎ ‎France‎ ‎contemporaine‎ ‎T.‎ ‎II‎ ‎i‎ III.

29. Yes, Cod., Theod., XVI, 5, 40.

30. The so-called *sanbenito* (*saccus benedictus*)—a sleeveless garment featuring a red cross stitched on both the front and back, worn by those who had abjured heresy—was a penitential garment long known and widely used during the Middle Ages, rather than one invented by Inquisition legislation.

31. In 1600, the former Dominican Giordano Bruno also perished at the stake as an obstinate heretic who propagated pantheism and hurled vile insults at the Church and the popes; among the enemies of religion, he is regarded as a martyr, and for this reason, a monument to him was erected in Rome.

32. This was acknowledged by the renowned Doctors of the Church of the 13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure.

33. A complaint of this kind reached Gregory IX from Germany regarding Conrad of Marburg, who was later murdered.

34. This formality protected them from incurring an irregularity (*irregularitas ex defectu lenitatis*).

35. Luther advised exterminating the Anabaptists with fire and sword (Luthers Werke XX, 364).

36. Calvin proclaimed the principle that heretics should be restrained by the power of the sword—a stance for which Beza and Melanchthon commended him.

37. We recall the massacres of the clergy in France (during the Great Revolution and by the Commune in 1871), in Barcelona in 1909, in Lisbon in 1910, etc.

Nor can the Church be held responsible for the Spanish Inquisition and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The Spanish Inquisition, established in 1478 through the efforts of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, was an ecclesiastical-political institution directed primarily against the Jews—a group that had amassed immense wealth and great influence as far back as the Visigothic era, even holding the office of treasurer, while also engaging in proselytism hostile to the Christian religion. To this end, they would even accept baptism (such individuals were known as *Marranos*—that is, “unclean ones”), enter into marriages with powerful families, and gain entry into the clergy, rising even to the rank of bishop. Inquisition tribunals were tasked with monitoring such subversive neophytes; and on March 31, 1492, a royal edict was issued ordering all Jews who did not convert to Christianity to leave Spain; subsequently, about 150,000 Jews left the country.

The Inquisition tribunals also targeted the so-called *Moriscos*—converted Moors—who were later expelled from the country in 1609; at the same time, the tribunals served a hidden political purpose: to break the dominance of the nobility and the clergy while strengthening royal authority.

While Sixtus IV did indeed authorize the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition (November 1, 1478) and the establishment of a national court of appeal—after which the Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada, whom he had confirmed, organized four inquisitorial tribunals—the same Pope complained in a brief dated January 29, 1482, that the approving bull had been obtained from him through deception; furthermore, as early as 1483, he accepted numerous appeals lodged in Rome, despite the Spanish monarchs’ persistent opposition to such appeals. Similarly, Popes Leo X, Paul III, and Paul IV demanded a mitigation of legal procedures and reprimanded overly harsh inquisitors; Leo X even went so far as to excommunicate the inquisitors of Toledo in 1519.

Undoubtedly, abuses did occur, but the number of those executed—that is, those subjected to an *auto-da-fé* (*actus fidei*)—was far lower than the figure cited by the dishonest, Freemason-affiliated Father Llorente (38). For instance, according to that same writer, 750 offenders were supposedly punished at the *auto-da-fé* held in Toledo on February 12, 1486; in reality, however, not a single one of them lost their life, and their punishment consisted solely of ecclesiastical penance (39).

On the other hand, serious historians acknowledge that the Inquisition saved Spain from the encroachment of Protestantism and the ensuing religious and civil wars. It is also significant that Spanish literature flourished during that very era, producing writers such as Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderón, Mariana, and others—even though the printing of their works required the approval of the Inquisition. In the 18th century, the Inquisition was largely confined to punishing Freemasons, blasphemers, and sorcerers, as well as censoring works deemed religiously or politically suspect; it disappeared from the scene upon the death of Ferdinand VII in 1830 (40). As for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (the night of August 24, 1572), it was, in a sense, a reprisal for the massacre of Catholics committed by Huguenots in Nîmes in 1569, while also serving as a political maneuver by the Queen Mother, Catherine de’ Medici, aimed primarily at Coligny. In Rome, the massacre was portrayed as the quashing of a plot against the life of Charles IX, and for this reason, Gregory XIII ordered the singing of the *Te Deum* (41).

Regarding the Jews, synods occasionally adopted resolutions intended to protect Christians from usury and Jewish moral corruption; yet, on the other hand, Church authorities consistently condemned the acts of violence and lawlessness committed against Jews in various places—particularly in France and Germany. Popes such as Saint Gregory the Great, Alexander III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Nicholas IV, and Clement V stepped forward in their defense; history also bears witness to the fact that Jews in Rome were never oppressed under papal rule—a kindness for which they repaid the popes shamefully after 1870. When the “Black Death”—that is, the terrible plague—was ravaging Europe in the 14th century and word spread that the Jews had brought it about, Pope Clement VI threatened severe penalties against those who persecuted Jews; two hundred and thirty years later, Sixtus V decreed similar punishments.

In contrast, Luther, in his writing *Vom Schem Hamphoras*, calls for the Jews to be exterminated without mercy, labeling them devils incarnate! VIII. Religion is essential to society, not least because it safeguards laws and customs by grounding them in the unshakable foundation of natural and Divine law. One must recall the mire of vice—even acts against nature—in which pagan society was once submerged, and the transformation wrought within it by the religion of Christ; it introduced virtues previously unknown or exceedingly rare—such as humility, self-denial, self-sacrifice for one’s neighbor born of the love of God, and respect for human dignity even in slaves. Today, too, religion remains a bulwark of public morality—one that is irreplaceable. The police may track down criminal acts, and the courts may punish the guilty; yet what earthly power can penetrate that sanctuary known as the conscience? Only religion enters that realm and issues commands; it alone provides effective aid in stemming evil at its very source. It also instills the virtues without which social life is impossible, and inspires noble deeds or great acts of self-sacrifice—so often needed by society.

Philosophers and statesmen throughout the ages have acknowledged this: “To destroy religion,” Voltaire himself said in a moment of better inspiration, “is tantamount to populating the earth with bandits, criminals, and monsters” (42); And on another occasion, he did not hesitate to assert that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him. “No society can exist without morality,” Napoleon I also declared, “and there is no true morality without religion. Thus, only religion can serve as the foundation and support of society. A society without religion is a ship without a compass; for just as a ship deprived of a compass drifts at the mercy of chance, knowing neither its course nor having any hope of reaching port, so too does a society without religion—constantly tossed and buffeted by the waves of wild passions—become the defenseless prey of anarchy and civil strife, plunging into an abyss of calamity and heading, sooner or later but inevitably, toward ruin” (43).

Footnotes:

38. Protestant writers, such as Schäfer (*Beiträge zur Geschichte des spanischen Protestantismus und der Inquisition*, Gütersloh 1902, I, 25), also acknowledge this. Llorente, suspected of embezzling eleven million and colluding with the French, was banished from the country; it was then (in 1817) that he wrote his history of the Inquisition—a work riddled with falsehoods (d. 1823).

39. Cf. *Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia*, Vol. VIII, entry on the Spanish Inquisition.

40. The Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition in Rome—established by Paul III in 1542 and reorganized by Sixtus V and Pius X—is the supreme office charged with safeguarding the purity of the doctrine of faith and morals, and with adjudicating cases involving heresy or offenses suspected of heresy. The Sacred Congregation of the Index of Prohibited Books is now united with it.

41. Many Huguenots were saved by Catholic bishops and priests. The death toll reached up to 2,000, or 786 according to Huguenot pastors.

42. Trade ‎de ‎I ‎atheism‎e.

43. Napoleon’s speech to the parish priests in Milan (June 5, 1805).

But why use words when facts speak for themselves? The experience of ages has shown that wherever the Catholic religion is widely acknowledged and permeates hearts with its influence, peace, harmony, and morality prevail—in a word, public order—and that, conversely, the decline of religion leads to social disintegration. France at the end of the 18th century stands as proof of this. Indeed, Robespierre himself, witnessing the terrible havoc wrought by atheism, did not hesitate to declare from the rostrum: “If the existence of God and the immortality of the soul were merely a figment of the imagination, they would still have to be regarded as the finest invention of the human mind.” Moreover, this very leader of the revolution sought to reintroduce the worship of the Supreme Being in order to save French society from ruin. To this same end, one of the five members of the Directory, La Révellière-Lépeaux, organized for France, the deistic cult known as theophilanthropy (44); and soon afterwards, First Consul Bonaparte restored the Catholic religion. In the 19th century, the architect of the so-called Prussian *Kulturkampf*, Prince Bismarck, also retraced his steps from a path unwisely chosen, upon seeing the terrible harm the persecution of the Church was inflicting on society.

Today, Masons, socialists, and radicals—heedless of these past lessons—proclaim as the ideal of the age a state without God, law without God, politics without God, schools without God, and social life without God; in the name of these ideas, they wage a war to the death against the Church—as occurred in the 20th century in France and Portugal. Yet, this course threatens the world with catastrophes new and worse than those of the past, for the decline of religious life is swiftly followed by the erosion of public morality, and that, in turn, by unbridled license and anarchy.

Religion also stands guard over the sanctity of the oath. Everyone agrees that the oath is a vitally important element of the social order, whether as a confirmation of obligations undertaken or as a means of proof in judicial proceedings. Yet, an oath holds significance only insofar as it is grounded in belief in the most holy and most just God. Without this faith, an oath is an empty formula—indeed, a veritable mockery of God and humanity—and it is hardly surprising that atheists, such as Bradlaugh, refuse to take oaths, or that Freemasonry seeks to eliminate them from the courts. Therefore, to preserve the sanctity of the oath, one must instill the fear of God in people’s hearts.

From the very beginning, the Catholic religion has also defended the right to property—a right rooted in natural law and serving as one of the foundations of the modern social order. Far removed from the worship of the golden calf, yet equally opposed to false spiritualism, it has consistently condemned pernicious doctrines that sought to overthrow this right—such as those of the Manichaeans in early times; the Albigensians, Lollards, Dulcinians, and others in the Middle Ages; the Anabaptists in the 16th century; the socialists in the 18th and 19th centuries; and the communists in the 20th century.

On the other hand, this religion condemns exploitation and usury (46), demands the observance of strict justice, prescribes almsgiving as a duty, bids the rich man open both his purse and his heart, and institutes a voluntary communism (47) based on Christian love of one’s neighbor.

IX. How unjust, then, is the charge made by today’s socialists that Christianity is the religion of the wealthy and privileged—that this religion supports despotism and capitalism—that it concerns itself only with eternal life and cares nothing for temporal well-being—and that, consequently, humanity (and above all the working class) ought not merely to abandon it but to eradicate it, so that—in the words of one of their leading figures, Marx—the very name of “God,” as the “cornerstone of a corrupt civilization,” might be wiped from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, a vast multitude of workers believe their leaders—mostly Jews—and, seeking heaven on earth while dreaming of social revolution, turn away from Christ and His Church.

Meanwhile, Christ the Lord rebuked greed, pride, selfishness, and exploitation, and pronounced a terrible “woe” upon the rich who misused their wealth. He not only voluntarily embraced poverty but also called the “poor in spirit” blessed—that is, those who, having fallen into poverty through no fault of their own, endure it patiently without neglecting work; as well as those who do not cling to their riches but use them solely for good purposes, or renounce them entirely in order to serve God and their fellow men more freely. Moreover, Christ the Lord showed Himself to be merciful during His earthly life, for He fed hungry multitudes, miraculously healed the sick, and comforted the afflicted; furthermore, He commanded all people to perform works of mercy, promising the merciful an abundant reward and threatening the unmerciful with severe punishment at God’s judgment.

With Christ the Lord, mercy descended upon the earth; For history bears witness that the poor, orphans, the sick, and the abandoned have always been the object of the Church’s special solicitude—that as early as apostolic times, organized care for them was established and entrusted to deacons under the guidance of bishops—that from the fourth century onwards, hospices (*xenodochia*), shelters, hospitals, and other institutions—previously entirely unknown — were founded for them (48) — and that even today, so many religious congregations and lay associations labor in this field with great dedication (49).

X. Christ bestowed a kind of heavenly nobility upon the class of artisans and laborers, for He Himself worked at a carpenter’s bench until the age of thirty; in doing so, He elevated and sanctified manual labor — which in the pagan world had been held in contempt and left to slaves — just as He later elevated and sanctified intellectual labor through His tireless teaching of the multitudes. The home in Nazareth, with Saint Joseph’s workshop, became a sanctuary and a school of manual labor; and according to the Church’s teaching, such work is not merely an act of penance but also an offering and a source of solace and merit, provided one adheres to the motto: “Pray and work.” Socialism, on the other hand, by rejecting religion, strips labor of its higher dignity and degrades and renders miserable those who toil.

Furthermore, Christ commanded that justice be administered to all and that due wages be paid, for the laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7). Following the Divine Master, the Apostle Paul states that the plowman who labors ought to be the first to partake of the fruit (2 Timothy 2:6), while Saint James warns of God’s wrath against those who, by withholding wages from workers, become, in a sense, their murderers (James 5:1–7). Throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has shown sincere goodwill toward the working classes, establishing brotherhoods, guilds, institutions, and loan funds for their benefit. When, in more recent times, the spread of capitalism, speculation, usury, and factory-based industry—and, above all, the weakening of the Christian spirit—greatly worsened the lot of workers, Popes stepped forward in their defense; notably, Leo XIII, in his momentous encyclical *Rerum Novarum* on May 15, 1891, condemned shameful exploitation and demanded an improvement in social and economic conditions in accordance with Christian principles (50). This sparked a great and salutary movement not only within the Catholic world (51) but also in secular legislation, leading almost every nation to enact specific laws for the benefit of workers. It has therefore been rightly said that the Catholic religion is and today as the “salt of the earth” and the “agent preventing the decay of the social body” (52).

XI. Religion is also the guardian of true culture—which, according to modern conceptions (53), encompasses the development of customs, education, skills, and social and economic relations; for, like the Gospel leaven that leavens a large quantity of flour, it permeates all these spheres with its influence and, through the governing Church, fosters everything in humanity that is true, noble, beautiful, and beneficial. We have already stated what the Church does to preserve morality and refine customs; but what are its contributions in the fields of education and learning? (54)

Footnotes:

44. See by the same author: *The French Revolution and Religion*. Kraków, 1890.

45. As early as in his writings *The Social Contract* and *Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men*, J.J. Rousseau advocated not only socialist theories but also a return to the state of nature. “Only in the forests can man preserve his nature in all its purity and regain the innocence of the primordial state, without being stifled by the bonds of homeland, marriage, and family” (*Discourse*, etc.).

46. Relying on the words of the Savior—”Lend, expecting nothing in return” (Luke 6:35)—the Church condemned usury at its councils and insisted on the principle that a loan should not yield a profit for the lender, as it stems from the obligation of charity toward one’s neighbor; however, out of regard for civil law and the fact that the lender foregoes the profit the money might have generated in trade or industry, the Church has tolerated and continues to tolerate the charging of moderate interest—a point noted by Benedict XIV in the encyclical *Vix pervenit* on June 26, 1746. As usury became widespread again during the Middle Ages, the Church began, from the mid-15th century onwards, to establish charitable loan institutions (*montes pietatis*) to assist the poor and needy without... ...granted loans at too low an interest rate.

47. Cf. Charles Perin, *Le socialisme chrétien*; Albertus, *Die Sozialpolitik der Kirche*; Dupanloup, *La charité*; Pastoral letter of Bishop Józef Sebastian Pelczar for the year 1907; Rev. Dr. Stanisław Trzeciak, *Christ the Lord and the Social Question* (Przemyśl, 1907).

48. If grain was distributed to the poor in Rome, it was primarily to win the votes of the proletariat and prevent riots.

49. Cf. by the same author: *Outline of the History of Mercy in the Catholic Church*. Kraków, 1915.

50. Cf. by the same author: *Letters and Instructions on the Social Question*. Przemyśl, 1907.

51. In the encyclical *Graves de communi* of January 18, 1900, Leo XIII set forth the principles of “Christian democracy.” At every opportunity, the same Pope exhorted priests to “go among the people and serve them”—without, of course, neglecting their strictly spiritual duties. Alfred de Mun in France (d. 1915), Gaspard Decurtins in Switzerland (d. 1916), Father Mellaerts in Belgium, and Christian-social associations in many countries particularly distinguished themselves in this field of work.

52. Cf. Cardinal Stanton Devas. World Progress and the Church, etc., etc.

53. See Dr. Joseph Masbach Die Kirche und Die moderne Kultur w Religion ‎Christentum‎ ‎Kirche.‎ ‎1913‎ ‎III.‎ ‎B.

54. See the Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia of X., Nowodworski, T., XXVII, Ar. Schools. - ‎ Hettinger ‎ Apologie ‎ des ‎ Christenthums ‎ V. ‎ B. ‎ XXI ‎ Vortrag. August 9, 1908.

XII. Christ the Lord brought divine truth to earth; when accepted through faith, this truth becomes a light for every soul, for it introduces the soul into the supernatural realm—the realm of God — while simultaneously casting its rays upon the natural order, that is, upon human affairs and branches of knowledge. The Church proclaims this truth throughout the ages; indeed, to foster a deeper understanding of it, the Church established — as early as the second century — catechetical schools. Yet, the Church does not disdain the sciences of the natural order, knowing that each of them, if rightly directed, pays homage to Him whom Holy Scripture calls “Dominus scientiarum” (1 Samuel 2:3).

Aware of its great mission to educate and civilize barbarian peoples, the Church preserved the surviving remnants of ancient learning and established schools — both elementary and advanced—attached to episcopal cathedrals and monasteries; in the elementary schools, young people, both clerical and lay, were taught reading, writing, arithmetic, singing, and religion, while in the advanced schools, the curriculum comprised the *trivium* (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic) and the *quadrivium* (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music) — with the primary aim of these schools being to instill a truly Christian character in the students.

In this work, the secular clergy were assisted by religious orders — initially the Basilians in the East and the Benedictines in the West, and later, from the 16th century onwards, also the Jesuits, Theatines, Barnabites, Somascans, Piarists, Missionaries, and the Brothers of the Christian Schools. The education and upbringing of girls were — and continue to be — undertaken by religious orders such as the Benedictines, Ursulines, Visitation Sisters, School Sisters, Sisters of Charity, and others; the 19th century, in particular, saw the emergence of a great many congregations active in this field (55).

Alongside secondary schools, from the 9th century onwards, we see the presence of parish schools in towns and villages; regarding these, Theodulf, Bishop of Orléans, issued the following regulations around the year 826: “Parish priests in villages and small towns are to maintain schools. If any of the faithful wish to entrust their children to them for instruction in learning, they must not turn them away but teach them with the utmost love. They are not to demand payment for this instruction.” We shall discuss the resolutions adopted regarding schools in Poland later on.

Universities were established from the 12th century onwards to cultivate higher learning; within them, theology, law, medicine, and the so-called *artes* (liberal arts) were taught. Popes founded or authorized these institutions, granting them various privileges — such as the right to confer academic degrees (baccalaureate, licentiate, doctorate). For instance, Urban V approved the University of Kraków — founded by Casimir the Great in 1364 with three faculties — while Boniface IX authorized the teaching of theology there in 1397 (56). Education was free and accessible to all, in accordance with the principle upheld by Alexander III: “One must not sell for money that which we have received as a gift from Heaven” (57); moreover, both clergy and laypeople established separate residential halls to support the students, who were very numerous at the time (58).

Among the disciplines, theology reigned supreme—universally acknowledged as the queen—and, together with philosophy (termed the *ancilla theologiae*, or handmaid of theology), it reached the zenith of its development during the Scholasticism of the thirteenth century, particularly in the work of the “Angelic Doctor,” Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet she was not a jealous queen; indeed, she allowed other sciences to flourish alongside her and extended her protection over them — so much so that the scholar Guizot, despite being a Protestant, did not hesitate to write: “It is an undeniable fact that the entire intellectual and moral development of Europe stems essentially from theology, which acts as the sovereign and guide of minds; all outlooks bear the stamp of theology, and all philosophical, political, and historical questions are examined from a theological perspective. The spirit of theology is, as it were, the blood coursing through the veins of the world.” ...right up to Bacon and Descartes” (59).

Among the branches of the vast tree of theology, dogmatics held — and still holds — precedence; yet the study of Holy Scripture was not, and is not, neglected—contrary to the unjust accusations Protestants level against the Church. After all, all the Church Fathers and theologians drew their wisdom from the sacred books, and many of them earned renown in the fields of exegesis and other biblical disciplines — to name but Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Jerome, Saint Bede, Cardinal Ximénez, Alfonso Tostatus, Maldonatus, Cardinal Toletus, Cornelius a Lapide, Salmerón, Estius, Sixtus of Siena, Calmet, and so many more recent figures.

Nor is it true that Luther was the first to translate the Bible into German; indeed, between 1462 and 1520, over twenty editions of the complete Bible appeared in High German, along with four editions in Low German. Today, many Protestant critics reject the divine inspiration — and consequently the supernatural character — of the Bible; among Catholics, however, it remains held in reverence, just as in the past. Two recent popes contributed to this: Leo XIII, by establishing the “Biblical Commission,” and Pius X, by founding the “Biblical Institute” in Rome (60).

For many centuries, the clergy held the reins of secular learning almost exclusively, to the point that even humanism, in its early stages, found its devotees primarily among the clergy; Saint-Simon could therefore rightly say: “Humanity owes the progress of civilization—achieved between the time of Hildebrand and the sixteenth century — to the clergy; and this progress is immense” (Oeuvres X, 69). It was only Luther’s “Reformation” that destroyed many Catholic schools and simultaneously lowered the standard of—while secularizing—learning, which had previously been dedicated to religion; yet it could not have been otherwise, given that the innovators of the time proclaimed that reason and education came from the devil, and that scholastic (that is, Catholic) philosophy was idolatry. Nevertheless, the Church did not cease to foster learning and schools, even though the French Revolution in the 18th century, anti-Christian liberalism in the 19th, and Freemasonry combined with socialism in the 20th century wrought fresh havoc in this sphere.

Footnotes:

55. Cf. by the same author: *An Outline of the History of Mercy in the Catholic Church*.

56. By the year 1300, there were 23 universities, known as *studia generalia*.

57. Guizot ‎Cours ‎d’histoire ‎moderne ‎VI ‎Lex.

58. For instance, the University of Oxford had as few as 30 students in 1340, whereas the University of Prague had 20,000 in 1408.

59. There were eight such student hostels in Kraków; Pope Urban V supported over 1,000 students at various universities at his own expense.

60. In more recent times, notable contributions to the field of biblical studies have been made by the Jesuits Cornely (d. 1908), Knabenbauer (d. 1913), Hummelauer, Fonck, and Fr. Władysław Szczepański; the Sulpician Vigouroux; the Dominicans Lagrange, Hugues, Vincent, and F. M. Abel; and professors Fr. Kaulen, Fr. Władysław Knapiński, Fr. Stanisław Trzeciak, and others.

It may be said that almost all branches of knowledge owe a debt to the Church; for not only do its dogmas shed clear light on the natural order—serving as signposts for scholars to prevent them from straying into error during their research—but its clergy have also fruitfully cultivated various fields of secular learning (61). For instance, they made significant contributions to astronomy: Nicolaus Copernicus (d. 1543), the Jesuits Adam Schall (d. 1665) and Scheiner (d. 1663), Cysat, Karol Braun, Giovanni Riccioli (lunar spots), Giuseppe Piazzi (the planet Ceres), the Jesuit Angelo Secchi (d. 1878; stellar physics), and others; to mathematics: the Jesuit Clavius ​​(d. 1612; calendar reform), Luca di Borgo (algebra), Bishop Johannes Müller Regiomontanus (d. 1476), Abbé Haüy (metric system); and to physics and chemistry: Arnold of Villanova (chemical acids), Buileau (thermometer, 1659), Lana and Rollet (electricity), Chappe (telegraph), Dunn (gas production, 1815), etc.; in the field of medicine: the Benedictine Constantine of Monte Cassino (c. 1050) translated Arab medical texts, Bishop Nicolaus Steno (anatomy), Fabri (blood circulation), Celestyn Opitz (anesthesia), Jan Sobel (antiseptics), Sikard (quinine), Sebastian Kneipp (d. 1878, hydrotherapy), etc.; regarding the treatment of the insane: Juan Giliberto Joffre (founder of the first hospital for the insane in Valencia, c. 1409), Saint John of God (d. 1550), etc.; regarding the education of the blind: the Jesuit Lana (c. 1687); regarding the education of the deaf-mute: the Benedictine Pedro de Ponce (1584) and the Abbé de l’Épée (d. ‎1789);‎ about‎ linguistics:‎ Jesuit ‎ Hervas ‎ and ‎ Carmelite ‎ Paolino ‎ di ‎ San. ‎ Bartolomeo ‎(Sanskrit);‎around‎classical studies ‎popes‎ Nicholas V‎(1447—1455),‎Pius‎ II (1458—1464), Leon X X (1512—1521),Cardinal Nicholas Cusanus (f 1464),many bishops and priests; around geography: Camaldolese Mauro (+ 1459) Mappa mundi), Euz. ‎Fr. ‎Chino (New California), ‎Samuel ‎Fritz ‎i‎ Jesuit ‎Roman (examination of the Amazons), ‎Jesuit Francis Paez (sources of the Nile), Jesuit Marquette (Mississippi), Marceli Dobrischofer (South America), Hue ‎(Tibet), ‎Jesuit ‎Joseph ‎Tiefenthaler‎ ‎(Dawalaghiri),‎ Aloysius ‎Mussil (Arabia ‎rocky)‎ ; about‎ ‎palaeography and diplomatics: ‎Benedictines‎ ‎Mabillon‎ ‎(+‎ ‎1708)‎ ‎and‎ ‎Montfaucon‎ ‎(+‎ ‎1741),‎ ‎Cardinal Angelo‎ ‎Mai ‎(+ ‎1854,‎ ‎palimpsests);‎ Regarding history: Eusebius of Caesarea, Długosz (d. 1480), the Jesuit Mariana (d. 1624), Baronius (d. 1607), Muratori (d. 1750), the Jesuit Bolland (d. 1665), the Jesuit Papebroch (d. 1714); regarding numismatics: Bishop Nicholas Oresme (d. 1382), Joseph Hil. Eckhel (*Doctrina nummorum*, 1792–1798), etc.

Today, circumstances have changed: on the one hand, work across the various fields of human knowledge has expanded to such an extent that the clergy alone could not manage it; on the other, strictly priestly and pastoral duties have multiplied to the point where they consume the clergy’s energies. Nevertheless, the clergy does not entirely abandon the realm of scholarship and maintains its presence in schools as best it can — founding Catholic schools (62) and doing much to foster Catholic education for the general public.

XIII. The enemies of the Church view this with disfavor and raise various objections. For instance, they claim that the Church fostered superstition rather than true teaching by imposing severe penalties on witches. Yet, ancient penitential canons and synodal decrees demonstrate that the Church—under threat of harsh punishment—strictly forbade belief in sorcery, as well as sinful practices such as divination, necromancy, fortune-telling via lots or cards (*sortilegium*), and black magic (*magia nigra* and *maleficium*) — that is, invoking evil spirits to produce strange effects or to harm one’s neighbor. These practices had been rampant in the pagan world—to the extent that Moses had to prohibit them under severe penalties—and had infiltrated Christian society from pagan sources. To eradicate such superstitions, the Church combated... ...as did the medieval Church—specifically through *ordalia*, or “judgments of God.” Nevertheless, under the influence of medieval sects, belief in witchcraft spread; and sorcery practices evidently proliferated as early as the beginning of the 14th century, given that the Knights Templar were accused, in that famous trial, of engaging in magic and worshipping the devil. Since sorcery was equated with heresy, it became a matter for inquisitorial tribunals, ecclesiastical courts, and certain synods; it was in this context that Innocent VIII issued the bull *Summis desiderantes* on December 4, 1484—a document to which the origin of witch trials has been wrongly attributed. As early as 1431, Blessed Joan of Arc was burned as a witch, and by the end of the 15th century, the number of such trials had risen—a trend to which two... German inquisitors Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Institoris contributed to this through their highly reprehensible work titled *Malleus Maleficarum* (Hammer of Witches) (63). Witch trials found a legal basis in the Criminal Code of Charles V (1532) — which was rooted in Byzantine-Roman law — classifying witchcraft as a capital offense punishable even on the grounds of mere suspicion. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the persecution of witches reached alarming proportions (64) and was carried out with appalling cruelty; severe torture was employed to extract confessions, and those who, driven by pain, admitted to the alleged dealings with the Devil were burned at the stake. Protestant courts in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, England, and Scotland claimed the highest number of victims—for instance, the Protestant judge Remigius... In the Cologne region, between 1556 and 1591, as many as 950 people were condemned to the stake, whereas not a single witch was burned in Rome. This is hardly surprising, given that Luther himself recounted his struggles with the devil — who appeared to him in visible form — and that, according to the Protestant historian Menzel, “superstitious belief in devils and specters filled the minds of everyone in Germany.”

It is also to the credit of Catholic priests—notably Cornelius Loos (d. 1593), the Jesuit Tanner (d. 1632), and Friedrich Spee, also a Jesuit (d. 1635)—that they boldly rebuked the lawlessness committed by secular judges in witch trials (65); certain Polish synods and bishops also spoke out against these abuses, leading to the abolition of torture and the death penalty for witchcraft at the Sejm of 1776.

One also frequently hears it said that the Church recognizes only theology as a true discipline while disdaining the natural sciences. This is false, for figures such as the Venerable Bede (d. 735), Alcuin (d. 804), Pope Sylvester II (d. 1003), Blessed Albert the Great (d. 1280), Roger Bacon (d. 1292), Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1294), Bishop Nicholas Oresme (d. 1382), Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (d. 1464), Nicolaus Copernicus (d. 1543), and others distinguished themselves—far beyond the standards of their times — by their knowledge of nature and its mysteries; later, too, many naturalists emerged from the ranks of the clergy, renowned for outstanding works or inventions in this field (66).

XIV. For example, the Gothic alphabet was invented by Bishop Ulfilas (d. 381) and the Old Slavic alphabet by Saint Cyril (d. 869); — the clockwork mechanism was perfected and Arabic numerals introduced by Benedict Gerbert (later Pope Sylvester II) in the 10th century; — the Benedictine Guido of Arezzo invented the musical scale and musical notation in the 11th century; — the Benedictine Gosbert of Tegernsee, glass painting in the 11th century; — the Dominican Alexander Spina, eyeglasses in the 13th century; — Albert the Great, in the same century, zinc and arsenic; — Roger Bacon, also in that century, magnifying glasses and telescopes; — the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, reformed Aristotelian cosmology around 1277 (67); — the deacon Flavio Gioja of Amalfi perfected the compass in 1302; — the abbot Richard Walimfort invented, in the year... 1326: astronomical clock; Franciscan Berthold Schwarz (c. 1300): gunpowder; — Jesuit Christoph Scheiner (d. 1650): helioscope and pantograph; — Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (c. 1680): magic lantern, speaking trumpet, pantometer, and artesian well; — Berthold Guzman (c. 1720) and later Jacques Desforges (1772): hot-air balloon; — Jesuit Grimaldi (c. 1752): flying machine (in which he flew from Calais to Dover); — Norbertine Prokop Divisch (18th century): lightning rod; — Fr. Pinaton (c. 1845): bicycle; — Benedictine Peter Singer (d. 1882): pansymphonicum; — Fr. Caudid: electric organ; — Jesuit Angelo Secchi: meteorograph and heliospectroscope; — Bishop Angelo Fiorini: railway signaling device (1899); — Prelate Cerebotani: a new telegraph apparatus (1900) — Fr. Daney, parish priest in a French parish Foctocau, a liquid for the rapid and reliable extinguishing of fires (1909), etc.

XV. The 19th and 20th centuries also saw no shortage of learned naturalists, astronomers, and mathematicians among the clergy—to name but a few: René J. Haüy (crystallographer, d. 1822), Jean Baptiste Carnoy (biologist, d. 1899), Francesco degli Antelminelli Castracane (botanist, d. 1899), Filippo Cecchi (meteorologist, d. 1887), Armand David (naturalist, d. 1900), Francesco Denza (meteorologist, d. 1894), Pierre Marie Heude (zoologist, d. 1902), Giovanni Inghirami (astronomer, d. 1851), Marian Wolfgang Koller (astronomer, d. 1896), Albert Laborde (physicist), François-Napoléon-Marie Moigno (naturalist), Johannes Leunis (botanist, d. 1873), Pierre André Latreille (zoologist, d. 1833), Giuseppe Piazzi(astronomer, d. 1826), Barnaba Oriani (astronomer, d. 1832), Stephen Joseph Perry (astronomer, d. 1889), Augustin Reslhuber (astronomer, d. 1875), Franz von Paula Schrank (zoologist and botanist, d. 1835), Angelo Secchi (astronomer, d. 1878), Augustyn Stark (physicist, d. 1839), Francescoe de Vico (astronomer, d. 1848), E. Wasmann (philosopher and naturalist, currently living), and others (68).

Footnotes:

61. As early as the 7th century, St. Isidore, Archbishop of Seville (d. 636), compiled what was essentially an encyclopedia of the religious and secular knowledge of his time, titled *Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX*.

62. Over the course of a few years, French Catholics spent up to 200 million on Catholic schools; the Brothers of the Christian Schools alone provided instruction to 324,180 pupils across 1,442 schools.

63. This work, later translated into Polish and regarded as a handbook for witch trials, was first published in Cologne in 1489.

64. Cf. the encyclopedia the church of Rev. M. Nowodworski, art. “Czarodziejstwo” [Sorcery], Vol. III, p. 625.

65. In 1631, the Jesuit Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld published a famous work titled *Cautio criminalis seu de processibus contra sagas*, which was challenged by the prominent Protestant jurist Benedict Carpzov. Influenced by Father Spee, Johann Philipp von Schönborn, the Elector of Mainz, abolished witch trials in his territories.

66. Roger Bacon was accused of engaging in alchemy and astrology, as well as of excessive criticism of Scholasticism—offenses for which the Order’s General, Jerome of Ascoli, punished him, though he later pardoned him after becoming Pope Nicholas IV.

67. In the *Revue des Deux Mondes* On July 15, 1913, Albert Duforque demonstrated that almost all the great scientific discoveries boasted of by modern times had already been made in the Middle Ages—and predominantly by clergymen educated at the University of Paris.

68. Theodor‎ ‎Deimel‎ ‎Zuaten‎ ‎—‎ ‎Apologie‎ ‎Freiburg‎ ‎1904‎ ‎pp.‎ ‎88‎ ‎sq.

XVI. The Church can also boast of lay natural scientists who combined profound knowledge with deep faith. Such men in the 19th century alone included: Alessandro Volta (physicist, d. 1827), André Ampère (physicist, d. 1836) (69), Philipp von Martius (botanist, d. 1873), Johann von Fuchs (mineralogist, d. 1856), Joachim Barrande (paleontologist, d. 1883), Johann Nepomuk von Nussbaum (surgeon, d. 1890), J. B. Biot (physicist, d. 1862), Jacques Babinet (physicist, d. 1872), L. Élie de Beaumont (geologist, d. 1874), Prince Baldassare Ludovisi Boncompagni (mathematician, d. 1894), Augustin-Louis, Baron Cauchy (mathematician, d. 1857), Jean-Antoine Chaptal (chemist, d. 1832), Michel-Eugène Chevreul (chemist, d. 1889) (70), Jean-Baptiste Dumas (chemist, d. 1884), André Dumont (geologist, d. ‎1857),‎ Armand-Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau (physicist ‎+ ‎1896),‎ ‎Augustin-Jean Fresnel ‎(physicist ‎+ ‎1827),‎ Stephen Geoftroy Saint-Hilaire (physicist ‎+ 1844), Thomas Thomas Dwight (anatomist ‎+ 1911), People ‎Henry ‎(chemist ‎Lowaniem), ‎Johannes Müller Argoviensis ‎(naturalist), ‎Claude ‎Bernard ‎(physiologist ‎+ ‎1878), Josef Hyrtl ‎(anatomist ‎+‎ ‎1894), ‎Karl Kreil ‎(astronomer ‎+ ‎1862), Hervé Faye ‎(astronomer + ‎1902), Luigi Palmieri ‎(physicist ‎+‎ ‎1896), Rene ‎Laennec ‎(physician ‎+ ‎1826),‎ ‎Albert‎ ‎de‎ ‎Lapparent ‎(geologist in ‎Paris),‎Urban‎ ‎J.‎ ‎Leverrier‎ ‎(astronomer‎ ‎+‎ ‎1877) ‎(71), Louis Pasteur ‎(chemist and physiologist ‎+ 1895) ‎(72), Peter ‎Joseph Pelletier ‎(+ ‎1842), ‎Eduard Heis ‎(astronomer ‎+‎1877), ‎‎Joseph Plateau‎ ‎(physicist‎+‎ ‎1883),‎ ‎Henri Victor Regnault‎ ‎(physicist ‎+1878), Marcel‎ ‎de‎ ‎Serres‎ ‎(geologist +‎ ‎1872),‎ George John Romanes (naturalist, d. 1894), Giovanni Schiaparelli (astronomer, d. 1910), Elias von Cyon (physiologist, d. 1912), and others (73).

Let one of them — Augustin-Louis Cauchy —testify to the attitude these learned men held toward the Catholic religion. Baron Cauchy, a mathematician renowned in his time: “I am a Christian — that is, I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ — just as Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Fermat, Leibniz, Pascal, Grimaldi, Euler, Guldin, Boscovich, and Gerdil believed; just as all the great astronomers, physicists, and geometers of past ages believed. I am even a Catholic, as the majority of them were; and were I asked the reason for this, I would gladly give it. It would become evident that my convictions are not the result of prejudices acquired at birth, but of deep study. I am a sincere Catholic, just as Corneille, Racine, La Bruyère, Bossuet, Bourdaloue, and Fénelon were — just as the most distinguished men of our era, who have brought the greatest honor to science, philosophy, literature, and... ...who brought the greatest renown to our Academy. I share the profound convictions that eminent scholars — such as Ruffini, Haüy, Laennec, Ampère, Pelletier, Freycinet, and Coriolis — demonstrated through their words, deeds, and writings; and if I do not mention others as well, it is because

I do not wish to offend their modesty” (74).

XVII. But someone might ask here: If the Church favors learning and scholars, why did the Holy Roman Congregation condemn and imprison Galileo in 1616 and 1623? Because he presented Copernicus’s theory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun—which was then still considered a hypothesis and was opposed by scholars—as an indisputable fact, and sought to use it to interpret a well-known passage from the Book of Joshua: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon... and the sun stood still” (10:12–13)—thereby acting as a theologian. When the Congregation forbade him from doing so (February 25, 1616), he—in a second work titled *Dialogo di Galileo Galilei dei due massimi sistemi del mondo, Tolemaico e Coperniciano* (1632)—[did so] even more strongly and in a manner he endorsed an opinion that was offensive to the Holy Congregation (75). As one suspected of heresy—”because he professed a doctrine contrary to the Holy Scriptures”—he was required to make a formal abjuration while kneeling in the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva (June 22, 1633) and was absolved of punishment. This judgment was based on a misconception regarding the scientific theory Galileo defended. However, it is not true that he was subjected to torture, nor that, after signing the act of abjuration, he stamped his foot on the ground and exclaimed: “Eppur si muove” (And yet it moves). It is certain, however, that in the Medici palace of the Grand Duke of Tuscany in Rome, as well as in the home of the fiscal advocate, in the palace of Archbishop Piccolomini in Siena, and in his own at the villa in Arcetri near Florence, where he was confined, he was able to devote himself freely to his studies and receive scholars — and also that Pope Urban VIII sent him his blessing at the time of his death (January 8, 1642).

As for Copernicus’s theory, contained in the book *De revolutionibus orbium coelestium*—the dedication of which Pope Paul III had accepted in 1543—it initially met with stronger opposition from Protestants than from Catholics. Specifically, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and the famous Protestant astronomer Tycho Brahe spoke out against it; Subsequently, the senate of Protestant scholars in Tübingen rejected Copernicus’s thesis as incompatible with Holy Scripture (76). As for the Catholic authorities, the Congregation of the Index, by a decree dated March 5, 1616, prohibited the reading and dissemination of Copernicus’s books on the motion of celestial bodies... [he] opened free access to the Vatican archives for historical research; earlier, Pius IX had been praised for supporting the archaeological work of J. Rossi (d. 1894). Also well-known are the words of Leo XIII, contained in a letter to American bishops (*Inter longinqua Oceani spatia*, January 6, 1895): “Any education would be incomplete if it did not include a knowledge of modern learning. In this fervent pursuit of knowledge, it is essential that Catholics move forward rather than merely trail behind.”

XVIII. But here we encounter the objection that, given the immutability of Catholic dogmas, progress in the cultivation of the sciences is impossible. Yet it is indeed possible, as evidenced by the countless host of Catholic scholars distinguished by both vast knowledge and profound faith. Every branch of learning must ultimately lead to Him who is the source of all truth; if a contradiction appears to exist between its findings and a particular dogma, it is a sign that the inquiry was not conscientious or was imprecise. The Church does not hinder free inquiry in any field, but reminds everyone that there are higher truths and laws which no one may disregard, and it interposes its veto only when those truths or laws have been violated. Can scholars complain of this? By that logic, a locomotive might just as well complain that it is not permitted to leave the rails along which it travels and derail itself (77).

Footnotes:

69. Ozanam—himself a scholar, writer, and devout Catholic—writes thus of the famous natural philosopher Ampère: “This venerable man, this great scholar and thinker, acclaimed by the entire world, humbly bowed without hesitation before every mystery of the holy faith, to the very extent defined by the Church in its teaching; and he, the renowned Ampère, knelt before the same altar where Descartes and Pascal knelt—where the poor widow and the innocent child kneel—yet he knelt with greater humility than they. No one observed the customs of the holy Church as conscientiously as he did” (*Œuvres complètes de A. F. Ozanam* VIII, 89).

70. It is told of the learned chemist Chevreul that, having once missed a train in Dourdan, he whiled away the time by publicly reciting the rosary before a statue of the Mother of God. The famous mathematician Augustin-Louis Cauchy (d. 1857) was a member of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul.

71. Leverrier had a cross placed at his astronomical observatory.

72. Louis Pasteur frequently received the Holy Sacraments; as he lay dying, he held a cross in his hand, having previously recited the Apostles’ Creed. When asked how he had managed to retain his faith after so much research, he replied: “It is precisely because I have reflected and investigated that I am a believer—like a Breton man. Had I reflected and investigated even more, I would be a believer like a Breton woman.”

73. Cf. Kneller S.J., *Christianity and Representatives of Modern Natural Science* (trans. from German), Warsaw 1909; Fr. Idzi Radziszewski, *The Credo of a Modern Physiologist (Elias Cyon)*, Włocławek 1913, p. 64 et seq. — Donuert, in the work *Die Religion der Naturforscher*—which refutes Haeckel’s claims (*Welträtsel*)—calculates that out of 262 natural scientists, 90% openly professed belief in God.

74. Mich. Mir S.J., *L’accord de la science et de la foi*, p. 455. In recent times, the renowned naturalist E. Wasmann S.J. categorically asserted: “There can be no genuine conflict between the Christian faith and the natural sciences.”

75. It is certain that the intrigues of professors and scholars envious of his fame contributed significantly to the condemnation of Galileo.

76. The famous Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, was also an opponent of the Copernican system.

77. Cf. K. Wohlandt, *Geistliche als Erfinder* (Graz, 1902). In recent times, notable contributions to the study of Assyrian antiquities have been made by Vigouroux and Scheil; of Arab antiquities by Mussil, Chabot, and Antoni Jansen; and of prehistoric remains by Breuil and others. In 1910, the French *Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres* awarded prizes for historical works to the priests Urseau, Petel, Metais, Quentin, and Dorvaux.

As regards academic freedom (78), reason itself dictates that no scholar—even one holding professorships and doctorates from every university—is absolutely independent or infallible; rather, like any ordinary mortal, he is subject to higher laws and bound by the constraints of logic and metaphysics, as well as ethical norms and the penal code—boundaries that must not be transgressed. He is not permitted, therefore, to propagate atheism from the lectern or in his writings, to utter blasphemies, or to revile the Catholic religion (79)—just as he may not incite treason, justify the assassination of a monarch, or advocate for anarchy or unbridled licentiousness. When the Church forbids such things, it is merely safeguarding true scientific progress while simultaneously defending the well-being of humanity.

XIX. The fine arts also owe a great deal to the Catholic religion; for not only did it elevate them into the realm of the ideal—calling upon them to embody spiritual beauty, whereas in the pagan world they had concerned themselves with sensual beauty—but it also provided them with a wealth of highly inspiring subjects, whether drawn from the mysteries of faith, liturgical rites, or ecclesiastical history. It is well known that the popes of the eighth century (Gregory II, Gregory III, Hadrian I) defended sacred images and sculptures against the fanaticism of iconoclasts such as Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus. It is well known that popes, bishops, and abbots played a major role in the development of architecture—particularly the Romanesque and Gothic styles—by devoting a significant portion of ecclesiastical wealth to the construction of magnificent churches. It is well known that masters such as... Figures such as Raphael, Michelangelo, Bramante, and others—imbued with Catholic ideals—soared to great heights under the protective wings of the popes, as evidenced by the Vatican’s *stanze*, loggias, and museums (80). It is well known that sacred music owes its origins and development to the popes and the clergy in general.

All preachers—led by such masters as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Bernard, Bossuet, Skarga, and others—can attest to the fact that the Church fosters and supports the art of oratory; meanwhile, the enduring renown of Dante and the body of religious hymnody demonstrate the high value the Church places on poetry inspired by the religious spirit.

XX. Under the influence of the lofty ideas and powerful means brought by the Christian religion, humanity was reborn and has since followed a path of progress. The Popes played the greatest role in this: whether by suffering martyrdom to bear witness to the truth of Christ—of whom there were twenty-nine in the first three centuries—or by defending the faith and civilization against fanatical heretics and the followers of Islam (81); whether by chartering universities and, with the help of the clergy, establishing schools of higher and lower learning; whether by taking spiritual and secular sciences, as well as the fine arts, under their protection; or by defending morality, justice, freedom, and peace within Christian society. It may thus be said that modern civilization is the child of the Church, and that what originally gave....life, and today it receives that life (82).

However, we encounter the objection that, whatever the merits of the Catholic religion in the past, civilization must now part ways with it and forge new paths; the reason given is that religion concerns itself solely with eternal life, while disregarding and neglecting temporal affairs. This is not a new objection; pagan philosophers of the second, third, and fourth centuries sought to prove that the Christian religion ran counter to the interests of the state and the requirements of social life—an argument later taken up by anti-Christian writers such as Bayle, Shaftesbury, J.J. Rousseau, Volney, Buckle, and others. They blamed this religion for seeking to halt the march of civilization and economic progress. However, proponents of socialism went the furthest, claiming that the Catholic Church was an enemy of humanity, enjoining people to suffer with resignation while deluding them with the hope of future happiness.

Is this true? What is the task of civilization on the one hand, and of religion on the other? Civilization—says Laforet (83)—has as its object the development, perfection, and well-being of man within the scope of the present life—that is, man’s temporal interests, whether material, intellectual, or moral; religion, meanwhile, strives to sanctify man and lead him to eternal union with God, thereby ensuring glory for God and happiness for man. Religion thus has an infinitely higher task than civilization, yet it does not oppose civilization; on the contrary, it serves as its sure and sound foundation. While it indeed rises high—reaching up to God and eternity—it nonetheless addresses itself to man living in the world, and its influence extends to all... ...his relationships—whether spiritual or temporal, public or private—teaching him to fulfill every duty and to sanctify every action,

even one as ordinary as partaking of food. Where its spirit reigns, there is no disharmony between divine and human law, between concern for eternity and the pursuit of earthly livelihood, or between prayer and work. Pope Leo XIII clearly demonstrated this in his momentous encyclicals; and it is confirmed by the history of the Middle Ages, a time when all branches of learning, as well as political and social institutions, were imbued with the Catholic spirit and had as their primary goal the elevation of humanity in religious and moral terms.

While religion bids us strive for heaven, it does not condemn the possession of earthly goods, as certain sects did; rather, it enjoins everyone to work conscientiously to support themselves and their families, blesses that labor, and teaches us how to enjoy its fruits. Religion commands us to combat sensuality and base desires, yet it does not deem the body inherently evil—as some philosophers and heretics have claimed—nor does it forbid lawful and moderate pleasures. Religion requires respect for Divine and ecclesiastical law, condemns the violation of holy days, and abhors the exploitation of the worker’s toil, yet it is no opponent of industry or commerce; indeed, it glorifies God in human endeavors and bestows its blessing not only upon churches but also upon factories and railways, while offering to those who labor hard... ...as a model and source of comfort, [looking to] Him who toiled at the artisan’s workbench in Nazareth. Religion bids us strive to know God’s truth, yet it casts no curse upon human knowledge; on the contrary, it rejoices in its development and fosters it, so that—avoiding paths of error—it may reach the source of all truth: God. The renowned poet Lamartine aptly said: “Any civilization that does not spring from the idea of ​​God is false. Any civilization that does not lead to the idea of ​​God is short-lived. Any civilization not imbued with the idea of ​​God is cold and hollow. The ultimate expression of a perfect civilization is a better knowledge of God, a better share in Him, and better service rendered to Him.”

Nor does religion oppose earthly prosperity, nor the sources from which such prosperity flows, provided those sources are pure and the means of drawing from them accord with God’s will.

Yet here we encounter the objection that the Catholic religion cannot be a proponent of economic progress and modern culture—that, on the contrary, it must be a cult of poverty and mendicancy, a sort of new Buddhism (84)—since Christ Himself commanded us to concern ourselves only with heaven and to disregard temporal goods, as well as what we shall eat or drink; consistently, too, He pronounced the poor blessed rather than the industrious, and in His parables exalted Lazarus and the Prodigal Son.

We answer this briefly. Christ the Lord came into the world to save mankind and to establish a kingdom of truth and grace for that purpose—not an earthly kingdom designed to satisfy human pride and sensuality. Consequently, He commanded that primary concern be given to the salvation of the soul, and to other matters only insofar as they do not hinder the work of salvation. He condemned greed, selfishness, self-indulgence, and the immoderate pursuit of temporal goods to the neglect of spiritual ones; yet, on the other hand, He also condemned wastefulness and idleness, while commending work and—both by word and example—requiring everyone to fulfill the duties of their station in life. The Apostles, too, worked with their hands, and one of them warned that whoever does not work should not eat (2 Thess. 3:10). The early Christians, and with the fruits of their labor they fed the poor who could not work. Even hermits in caves and monks in monasteries worked, for work—sanctified by Christ the Lord—had become one of the means of Christian asceticism.

History bears witness to how much the Catholic clergy—both secular and religious—have done and continue to do for the development of agriculture, horticulture, beekeeping, and certain branches of handicrafts—in a word, for economic progress. Even Michelet, though an enemy of religion, had to admit that the Benedictine Order gave the pagan world—rendered feeble by servitude—an example of labor performed by free men, and that their introduction of free and voluntary labor laid the foundations for a new society. In more recent times, Catholic missionaries have contributed most effectively to the spread of civilization among indigenous peoples; anyone seeking striking proof of this should read about the flourishing state to which the Jesuits brought the colonies in Paraguay, or observe the work the Trappists are doing to this day at Mariannhill in South Africa and elsewhere.

Whence, then, comes the complaint that the Catholic religion hinders the march of civilization and progress?

This is because today’s pernicious trends want nothing to do with divine truth, divine law, the struggle against sensuality, or eternal life, embracing only material progress and sensual indulgence. Yet who fails to see that this path leads to a pagan civilization — a civilization mired in the swamp of materialism and sensualism; a civilization that produced literary and artistic works of exquisite form, yet bowed before idols of marble and gold or believed in nothing at all; a civilization that often sacrificed human blood or the chastity of virgins to hideous idols and, following the example of its gods, sanctioned the vilest vices; a civilization that proclaimed the principle *Odi profanum vulgus* (”I hate the vulgar rabble”) and kept a vast portion of humanity in terrible bondage, subjecting the woman to the husband’s arbitrary will and the child to the father’s tyranny—that civilization which drowned the poor so they would not present a repulsive sight to the rich, which—to amuse bored sybarites—ordered gladiators to slaughter one another in the arena, and which, under the motto *Vae victis* (woe to the vanquished), ruthlessly exterminated entire nations. Do we desire a return to that civilization? For then we must fear that humanity would once again reach the state Rome was in during the time of the emperors—that is, a condition of despotism on the one hand and anarchy on the other, of moral depravity and the unraveling of all social bonds—in short, a state of savagery and bestiality. Fortunately for humanity, the Catholic Church still exists on earth, constantly warning it against such a civilization, but rather leads to true progress and spiritual renewal.

This was acknowledged by the eminent historian and critic Hippolyte Taine (d. 1894), who in his youth was not a believer at all, but later came to the conviction that “Christianity is a necessity for human progress—that it alone protects the human race from sinking into the mire—that it alone serves as an effective foundation for the social bonds of humanity.” Even before him, D. Strauss—despite being an enemy of the Christian religion—had stated: “Without Christianity, it would not have been possible to emerge from the quagmire of decaying paganism” (86).

It is not true, therefore—as the enemies of the Church readily proclaim—that it opposes all modern culture or that reconciling this culture with the Catholic religion is utterly impossible; for the Church does not condemn genuine progress in the intellectual, social, or economic spheres, but rather combats the anti-religious currents of materialism to which so many minds subscribe today, precisely because they bring ruin upon humanity. Faithful to its mission of leading people to salvation, the Church constantly reminds us that beyond the material world lies an ideal and supernatural realm—one that every person ought to come to know and whose treasures (namely truth, divine grace, and virtue) one should strive above all to attain — and that a person is truly wretched who loses their soul, even if they possess all the riches and He gained the pleasures of the world.

Footnotes:

78. See Jos. Donat S. I. Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft. 1912.

79. This is an allusion to the case of Dr. Wahrmund, a professor of canon law at the University of Innsbruck, who—at meetings and in wretched publications—promoted contempt for the Catholic religion (1908).

80. “All religions provide sustenance for art,” the famous Canova wrote to Napoleon I, “but none so abundantly as the Catholic faith. The Reformation did nothing to foster the development of the fine arts; indeed, art was even banished from the churches. (Cf. Rev. Al. Pechnik, *The Church and Culture*, Lwów 1914, p. 44).”

81. The initial idea for the Crusades was conceived by St. Gregory VII in 1074.

82. “Our civilization,” said Cesare Balbo, “is a Christian civilization; it is the daughter of the Christian religion. Whatever weakens the Christian religion simultaneously hinders progress and civilization” (De la destruction du pouvoir temporel des Papes, p. 11).

83. European Civilization in Relation to Christianity (translated from French). Warsaw, 1886. See also: Felix S.J., *Le progrès par le christianisme. Conférences de Notre-Dame de Paris 1868*.

84. Yes, Strauss, in the work, Der, alte, und, neue, Glaube., 9, Aufl. pp.‎ 41‎ sq.

85. Medieval monks—such as the Benedictines, Cistercians, Carthusians, Premonstratensians, and others—were not merely missionaries of the Christian faith but also pioneers of civilization; for it was they who cleared previously impenetrable forests, drained swamps, spanned rivers and ravines with bridges, built towns, and established new settlements that clustered around their monasteries, while also teaching agriculture, crafts, and cottage industries—leading the scholar Guizot to rightly call the Benedictines “the clearers of Europe,” and the historian Raumer to say of the Cistercians: “In each of them dwelt a clergyman, a peasant, and an estate manager.”

86. Green Thunderclap 1861.

XXI. But here we encounter an objection: if the Church does not condemn economic progress, why do Catholic countries—such as England, Saxony, the Netherlands, and so forth—lag behind Protestant ones in terms of education, industry, and prosperity? We reply that this is by no means an absolute certainty; after all, Northern France, Belgium, and Westphalia have predominantly Catholic populations, yet in terms of industry, they are in no way inferior to Protestant countries. Furthermore, if Spain and Southern Italy have fallen somewhat behind in this regard, this can be explained by the character or temperament of these peoples, by climatic and geographical influences, or by historical evolution—such as the depopulation of Spain following the discovery of America.

Moreover, in other respects—such as the development of art and the religious spirit—these countries stand above the Protestant ones.

Finally, there is no reason to envy nations their material wealth if they are impoverished in spiritual treasures, having lost religious truth. For it is not silver and gold, railways, stock exchanges and factories, theaters, palaces and exhibitions, lodges and clubs, nor novels in the vein of Zola that constitute the health and strength of a nation; rather, it is above all the fear of God, purity of morals, respect for divine and human law, submission to authority, a sense of duty, love of country, and mutual harmony — all of which are as closely bound to religion as the branches of a tree are to its roots.

Here, we must address the following objection: Catholic nations are poorer than Protestant ones; yet, in many countries, the Catholic clergy possesses vast wealth in the form of land or capital, and this “dead hand” property yields no benefit to society. To this, we reply that the Church requires earthly goods to fulfill its mission — goods intended for the construction of the Lord’s temples and charitable institutions, as well as for the support of the clergy and the poor. Christians of the early centuries already recognized this, mindful of the Savior’s command: “Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon” (Luke 16:9), and the words of the Apostle Paul: “Those who serve at the altar share in the offerings of the altar” (1 Cor. 9:13); later benefactors followed their example, convinced that by offering gifts to the Church, they offer a sacrifice pleasing to God and secure spiritual benefits for themselves. The Church, as the owner and guardian of these earthly goods, regarded them as sacred and inviolable, punishing those who unjustly seized them as sacrilegious offenders through ecclesiastical censures; yet, on the other hand, it did not shirk from ordinary or extraordinary levies for the state or from contributions to society. While it did happen at times that a particular clergyman misused Church assets — indulging in sybaritism or nepotism (that is, the desire to enrich relatives) rather than devoting them to the glory of God and the benefit of the faithful—who, in turn, could count the magnificent churches and great works of faith and Christian charity that owe their origins to the generosity of the clergy? These very assets were and remain a stumbling block for pseudo-spiritualist heretical sects, and an object of envy and greed for many laypeople; consequently, wicked monarchs and leaders of popular uprisings alike have frequently appropriated Church property. This occurred during the Reformation, as well as in numerous revolutions over the last three centuries. The most recent act of plunder took place in France in 1906 under the banner of the separation of Church and State; yet the hopes of Masons, radicals, and socialists were not realized, for the “Church billion” — ostensibly intended for the proletariat—largely vanished into the pockets of the liquidators, while the Church, though stripped of its assets and forced to rely on the offerings of the faithful, preserved its independence and continued its mission. Similar seizures of Church property occurred in other countries as well.

One more objection. Let us grant the case of the secular clergy, for they work for the benefit of society; but what good do those numerous religious orders—both male and female, and especially the contemplative and cloistered ones—actually do? To this question, we give a brief answer: the benefit derived from these orders is considerable. Religious life rests upon a solid foundation; ...in the Gospel—for Christ the Lord Himself enjoined the observance of the evangelical counsels, namely voluntary poverty, chastity, and obedience, when He said to the young man: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and follow Me” (Matthew 19:21). Thus, even in apostolic times, some renounced their wealth to imitate the life of Christ the Lord; there were also “holy virgins” and widows consecrated to God at that time, though they usually lived with their families. In the third and fourth centuries, hermits appeared in the East, and from the eremitic life, monasteries for men and women emerged; these were given a strictly defined rule by Saint Basil in the East (d. 379) and Saint Benedict in the West (d. 543). Alongside the Benedictines and... Other religious orders emerged alongside the Benedictines during the Middle Ages; their contributions to religious life, pastoral work, the education of youth, scholarship, charitable acts, and both spiritual and material culture were acknowledged even by anti-Catholic writers. From the 16th century onwards, women’s congregations without papal enclosure appeared and undertook the care of every form of human suffering; by the beginning of the 20th century, there were 120,000 nuns in France alone—teaching in girls’ schools, running day-care centers, nursing the sick, and ministering to the poor and the disabled. How shameful an act of lawlessness, then, did the French parliament commit by plundering and disbanding a significant number of these congregations.

Alongside mixed congregations—that is, those combining contemplation with active service—there exist convents of nuns dedicated to contemplation and domestic labor within the cloister; these, too, yield great benefit, for not only do they—through their holy lives—make reparation to the Lord God for the insults He suffers at the hands of the godless or the indifferent, and call upon people to cultivate Christian virtues, but through prayer and penance they also obtain the graces needed by their families and nations, and above all by those who do not pray (88). They may be likened to larks that soar upward at dawn to sing a song to the Creator, whereas many people living in the world resemble a flock of sparrows that chirp insignificantly yet busily gather grain. In short, religious orders that live and work according to their rule are an invaluable blessing and a great force within the Catholic Church; it is no wonder, then, that the enemies of the Church hate them with a deadly hatred.

Footnotes:

87. See Dr. Jor. Mausbach. Die Kirche und Die moderne Kultur in the work of Religion ‎Christenthum‎ Kirche‎ ‎III‎ ‎B.‎ ‎1913.

88. The daughter of the dissolute King Louis XIV and the pious Maria Leszczyńska, having become a Carmelite nun, obtained for her father the grace of conversion before his death.

XXII. It is also to the credit of the Catholic Church that it stands guard over universal peace. Before Christ the Lord, nations hated one another and were in constant conflict; one after another, they vanished from the stage of the world. It was the Christian religion that endowed the nations imbued with its spirit with inexhaustible strength, drew them together, and forged them into one great family under the maternal care of the Holy See. Thanks to its influence, racial and tribal antagonisms waned, the law of nations developed, and the horrors of war were mitigated (89). History also records how the Apostolic See established the “Peace of God” in Europe (90), how it curbed the despotism of rulers and the rebellions of subjects (91), how it reconciled disputes between nations, how it took the weak under its protection against the strong, and how it encouraged all to undertake great, common endeavors. Indeed, it was through its inspiration or blessing that the Spaniards defeated the Moors, the Crusaders captured Jerusalem, Poland baptized Lithuania, and Christian chivalry repelled the onslaught of Tatars and Turks.

It was only with the Reformation that the protection and arbitration of the Holy See began to be scorned. And what did the world gain by this? Merely this: that nations have since torn at one another like predatory vultures; that armies numbering in the millions must remain constantly under arms; that the powerful crush the weak, dismember nations, dismantle states, and violate the most sacred agreements—for the foundation of modern politics has become that terrible maxim: Might before right.

In vain have the popes of recent centuries called upon nations to seek peace and respect the rights of others—and, in the event of war, to employ only legitimate means of combat and to reconcile without compromising justice (92); yet, in the last war alone, more than ten million people perished and up to fourteen million were wounded, while the devastation inflicted upon modern culture and Christian ethics is beyond calculation.

Unable to steer politics onto a better course, the Church strives at least to preserve the religious spirit among Catholic nations; and when these nations face unjust oppression, it awakens in them a love for their homeland, urging them to sacrifice even their lives *pro aris et focis*—for altars and hearths. Religious zeal is a powerful engine of patriotism and an abundant source of great deeds. For what drove millions of Crusaders to the Holy Land? What later shattered the power of the infidels at Belgrade, Lepanto, and Vienna? What imbued our chivalry with courage during the great trials at Grunwald, Kircholm, Berestechko, and Khotyn? What helped the Spaniards drive invaders from their country in the nineteenth century? Above all, religious zeal.

Where this zeal is lacking, where love of country is not regarded as a sacred duty, it may well be found wanting in times of hardship (93). For it is not a vast army that constitutes the strength and defense of a nation, but the integrity and valor of its sons—qualities that spring from higher sources. Even the German Chancellor Bismarck—himself a proponent of the principle that “might makes right”—admitted as much: “A God-fearing soldier fights quite differently from one who has no religion. The former thinks to himself, ‘God sees me,’ and rises to acts of heroism, even when no officer is standing behind him” 1). This was also demonstrated during the World War (1914–1918); for what was it that uplifted the spirit of the French army—an army that Freemasonry had systematically poisoned with the venom of unbelief? It was the fact that the army included Catholic priests (95) who not only tended the wounded with great self-sacrifice as medics but also fought as soldiers with unparalleled courage; in their spare moments, they would pray alongside their comrades in the trenches or hear their confessions. ...and distributed Holy Communion to them.

Religion commands us to love our homeland, but with a holy love—one that acknowledges God’s law as supreme and employs only righteous means to achieve righteous ends; an active love, grounded not merely in feelings or outward displays, but above all in deeds and sacrifices; a noble love that does not preclude love for the great family of nations—especially Catholic ones — and stands far removed from blind hatred toward any particular people.

The Catholic religion, though universal, does not preach cosmopolitanism nor condemn the idea of ​​nationality, for that idea is in itself good and fruitful; indeed, it is to this idea that every nation owes its love for the native land, its unity and internal solidarity, and its striving for freedom, industry, and progress; — yet it becomes evil only when it transgresses against the eternal law of God. Consequently, this religion respects the distinct identities and ideals of individual nations, endowing them with such strength that—despite great calamities—they do not perish, as evidenced by the Polish nation; whereas those mighty pagan peoples—such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Romans, Huns, and so forth—one after another, were consigned to the grave. Furthermore, the Catholic religion strives to ensure that every nation faithfully fulfills the mission assigned to it by Divine Providence and contributes to the general harmony; conversely, it condemns national chauvinism and that truly pagan principle — revived in the 19th century—which dictates the eradication of weaker nations, or at the very least, the deprivation of their rightful liberties and freedoms.

At the same time, this religion condemns the idea of ​​establishing state or national churches—firstly, because such churches are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of Christianity, being contrary to the will of the Divine Savior, who founded a universal Church intended to embrace all nations; and secondly, because they invariably become instruments of government policy or demagoguery, thereby losing all authority and condemning themselves to spiritual death. The history of Protestantism and Eastern schism provides irrefutable evidence of this.

This is what society owes to religion. Today’s society is undergoing a severe crisis as punishment for having significantly departed from Christian principles and virtues; indeed, the deluge of calamities that befell the peoples of Europe during the last war was a terrible divine punishment for the deluge of errors and sins. Where, then, lies their salvation? It is to be found only in the ark of salvation—the Catholic Church—that is, in fidelity to the truths, laws, and graces of Christ which that very Church proclaims or dispenses.

Footnotes:

89. “We owe to Christianity,” says Montesquieu, “a certain political law regarding government and a certain law of nations regarding war—benefits for which humanity can never be sufficiently grateful.” (Esprit des lois, Book 24, Chapter 3).

90. The “Peace of God” (*Treuga Dei*) was a law adopted in the Middle Ages—through the efforts of bishops and popes (Urban II and Innocent III)—mandating that no one dare take up arms from Wednesday evening until Monday morning, nor during Advent (up to the Feast of the Epiphany), Lent (starting from Septuagesima), or major feast days; doing so would incur ecclesiastical penalties.

91. Guizot rightly called the Catholic Church “the greatest and holiest school of respect for legitimate authority”; yet this Church is also the mother of nations and a bulwark of liberty.

92. During the Great War, in an allocution on January 22, 1915, Pope Benedict XV loudly condemned “any injustice, by whomever and for whatever reason it might be committed.” He also interceded—and not without success—on behalf of prisoners unfit for military service, interned women, children under seventeen, and adults over fifty-five, as well as for many individuals sentenced to death or long terms of imprisonment. He championed the cause of the Belgian Primate, Cardinal Mercier—who was being oppressed by the Germans—and of the imprisoned professors from the University of Louvain, while also protesting against the bombardment of open cities. Finally, he established the highly effective Vatican information bureau and arranged for food supplies from America, as well as financial aid from other sources, to reach devastated countries—including Poland, Lithuania, and Ruthenia.

93. X. Bougaud recounts (*Le christianisme*, Vol. I, p. 393) that while examining the knapsack of a French soldier killed at the Battle of Orléans (1870), he found a collection of songs and phrases the man had written down—material so lewd and shameless that he was left dumbfounded with grief and horror. Could such songs have inspired the soldiers with a spirit of self-sacrifice for their country?

94. See Busch Bismarck und seine Leute page 172.

95. Eleven bishops were also conscripted into military service!

I. The family is of great importance, for it is the foundation of society; upon it depends, above all, the upbringing of individuals—and consequently the morality and strength of society itself. It is therefore fitting that religion should pay close attention to it. The Catholic religion does indeed do this: by sanctifying marriage, by defining the rights and duties of spouses, and by watching over the upbringing of children.

Marriage, the foundation of the family, is not a human creation but a divine institution (1)—by its very nature infinitely superior to any other human contract. From its very inception, it has borne a religious and moral character, defined by unity, indissolubility, and sanctity. Later,

however—especially with the spread of idolatry—marriage itself became corrupted; for we see polygamy and divorce almost everywhere, and here and there the abominable practice of polyandry or the even more heinous system of sexual communism, all of which led to the degradation of marriage, the disintegration of the family, and a terrible corruption of morals (2). Pagan philosophers were unable to remedy this evil; indeed, the most eminent among them, Plato, while outlining his ideal republic, debased his genius by advocating the communal sharing of women.

It was only the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ—having come to rectify, perfect, and sanctify all things—who restored marriage to its original characteristics and even endowed it with a dignity and power it had not previously possessed, by making it a source of supernatural grace, that is, a Sacrament. From that time on, marriage has been, in the full sense of the word, a holy reality, subject to the guardianship and authority of the Church and held in such reverence that, as early as the second century of the Christian era, Tertullian wrote: “How can I express the happiness of a marriage which the Church unites, the holy Sacrifice confirms, a blessing seals, Angels proclaim, and the Heavenly Father ratifies?” (3).

This exalted ideal of marriage endures within the Catholic religion. While that religion commends voluntary virginity as a more perfect state—inspiring thousands of souls in every age with such zeal that, in their fragile bodies, they lead an angelic life of total dedication to God and their fellow man—it simultaneously upholds the dignity of marriage, which the Apostle Paul calls a “great sacrament” (4), and defends it against erroneous attacks; for the doctrines regarding marriage held by the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Albigensians, and other sects were condemned as heretical.

This religion also stands guard over the indissolubility of a marriage validly contracted between Christians, even when monarchs themselves have sought to dissolve it; indeed, history bears witness that Pope Nicholas I defended the indissolubility of valid marriage against Lothair II; Urban II and Paschal II against Philip I, King of France; Celestine II and Innocent III against Alfonso, King of León, and against Philip Augustus, King of France; and Clement VII and Paul III against Henry VIII—with Henry VIII taking revenge for this defense by committing apostasy. It was also the universal belief within the Catholic Church that marriage is a sacrament; it was only Luther who termed it a “secular matter” (*ein weltliches Ding*) subject to secular authority. Protestants followed Luther’s lead, and even within the Catholic camp, there were those who... ...scholars (namely Jan Launoy, 1676) who defended the theory that the marriage contract should be separated from the Sacrament and that marriage—viewed as a contract—should be placed under secular authority (5). This theory was adopted by proponents of Gallicanism and Febronianism and was put into practice by Joseph II, who, through the Marriage Patent of January 16, 1783, subjected matrimonial matters to state legislation and jurisdiction.

The French Revolution went even further, declaring marriage a civil contract entirely subject to the state and introducing divorce (1792). The Church did not yield an inch on its principles; whether in the pronouncements of Pius IX (the 1852 allocution and the 1864 *Syllabus*), in Leo XIII’s 1880 encyclical *Arcanum*, or in the Code of Pius X, it affirmed the sacramental nature of marriage, noting that the Sacrament cannot be separated from the marital bond. Nevertheless, the anti-Christian spirit does not retreat; indeed, bolstered by the support of parliaments and governments, it strips marriage of its religious dignity, institutes civil marriage, and subjects marital matters exclusively to state authority.

Yet who fails to see that this path could lead to the undermining of marriage and the family? For if marriage is merely a contract—like the purchase of a horse or a cow, and nothing more—then that contract can be dissolved by mutual agreement, or even without it, at the behest of just one party; indeed, the inevitable consequence of civil marriage is divorce—that terrible scourge of modern society (6). Moreover, if the marriage contract is by its very nature dissoluble, why could it not be entered into for a period shorter than a human lifetime—why not for three years, as the Russian Bolsheviks decreed in 1917, or even for a few months or days? Why with only one person and not more? After all, according to the tenets of materialism, man is merely an animal; why, then, do violence to him and confine him within such bounds? Why have marriage at all—that relic of past ignorance? Would not the institution of “free love” (7) —imposing no restraints whatsoever—be more in keeping with the spirit of the times?

Footnotes:

1. See: by the same author, *Catholic Matrimonial Law*, 4th ed., Kraków 1897, p. 2.

2. Marriage and family life were least valued among the Greeks, somewhat more so among the Romans, Egyptians, Germanic peoples, and Slavs, and most highly among the Jews; for although polygamy and the granting of a writ of divorce to wives were tolerated among the Jews, monogamy nevertheless prevailed, and divorce was a rare and reviled occurrence. Only later did marital bonds loosen, to the point where Rabbi Hillel could put forward a theory allowing a wife to be abandoned if she prepared meals poorly; conversely, wives also began to claim the right to leave their husbands—as seen, for instance, in the cases of Salome, Herodias, the three sisters of Herod Agrippa I, and others.

3. Cf. J. Gaume, *History of Family Life*, Vol. I, Ch. II (translated from French and published in Warsaw, 1858). — Weiss, *Apologie des Christenthums*, etc., Vol. I, Book 5, Lecture 5. — Goli, *Kulturbilder aus Hellas und Rom*, Vol. II, 1.

4. To Eph. V, 32

5. See: the same author, *Catholic Matrimonial Law*, §§ 6 and 10.

6. Not long ago, the administrator of a reformatory for juvenile delinquents in France publicly announced that two-thirds of the inmates came from divorced parents (*L’Univers*, March 5, 1908).

7. The anti-religious camp is increasingly advocating for the institution of “free love.” In Warsaw, it is championed by proponents of “Independent Thought” (*Myśl Niepodległa*), as well as by Jewish men and women. In Germany, anti-religious groups praise the so-called *Mitgartehe*—a temporary union—and polygamy “for magnificent male specimens.” It is hardly surprising, then, that the number of illegitimate children has been rising year by year; there is no doubt that this figure will increase significantly as a result of the recent war, in which so many men perished. Furthermore, men and women in France, Germany, and elsewhere are increasingly vocal in demanding that illegitimate children be granted the same rights as those born in wedlock, and that unwed mothers be accorded the same respect as married ones. Yet who fails to see that in such a... ...sin will be rewarded and marriage degraded, while promiscuity—in the guise of “free love”—will run rampant. Will this work out for the good of humanity?

Similar voices are being raised with increasing force, and—once the religious standpoint is abandoned—one cannot deny them a certain consistency. Admittedly, liberalism stops halfway; out of regard for the interests of the state, it seeks to preserve civil marriage—that veritable caricature of marriage. Yet communism, following in its wake, brands this as tyranny; it rejects even civil marriage and, through the voices of its leading figures (Enfantin, Considerant, etc.), proclaims the community of women as a social ideal. Likewise, contemporary socialism seeks to eradicate Christian marriage from the world, replacing it with temporary unions, while having the children born of such unions raised at the state’s expense in public institutions—institutions where the sexes are mixed and all religious instruction is absent. Truly, were these currents to prevail, humanity would sink lower than the animals, which... Instinct guards against abuse. Yet, fortunately for the world, the Catholic Church still exists—the sole remaining bulwark of marriage—and, through the voice of Christ’s Vicars, it warns against the dangers threatening from this quarter.

II. Let us now examine family relations. Before Christ, they were deplorable, and they remain so today in countries where the light of the Gospel has not reached—including the lands of Islam. Everywhere we see terrible despotism: the father and husband is a cruel tyrant, the woman a wretched slave, and the child a defenseless victim. The lot of women in the pagan world was particularly dismal. I need not even mention Syria, Lydia, Armenia, and Cyprus—where virgins were consigned to serve as priestesses of Adonis, Mylitta, and Astarte, effectively becoming prostitutes—or Sparta and Babylon, where women were led to the marketplace and sold to the highest bidder, or India, where wives were burned alive alongside their husbands’ corpses; for even in Rome, under the old laws, a husband would buy himself a wife. ...and could throw her out of the house or hand her over to anyone else at any moment, for he held absolute power (8). Later, especially under the emperors, women regained greater rights and could even leave their husbands; yet divorce became so rampant that, as Seneca writes (*De Beneficiis* III, XVI), certain matrons of noble birth and renowned name counted their years not by the consuls, but by the number of husbands they had had. The satirist Juvenal could also say of his contemporaries: “Scarcely had Bibula’s face begun to lose its complexion and freshness, her teeth their whiteness, and her eyes their sparkle, when her husband stood before her and said: ‘Be gone, for you wipe your nose too often.’”

The position of women among the Jews was better; yet even there, she was subject to certain limitations, as a husband could annul his wife’s vows and cast her off by means of a so-called “bill of divorce.”

III. It was the Christian religion that lifted woman from centuries of degradation, placed her on an equal footing with man regarding human dignity—a dignity even some philosophers denied her—took her virginity under its protection, ensured her freedom of choice regarding marriage, defined her rights and duties toward her husband, delineated her sphere of action, and finally pointed out the path to sanctification by holding up the Mother of God herself as the perfect ideal of virginity, wifehood, and motherhood. Thanks to this religion, women rose spiritually and morally, and through her, so did the family and society; and while antiquity... It counted few women such as Deborah, Judith, Virginia, or Cornelia, but many Messalinas and Agrippinas; whereas Christianity produced millions of holy women, among whom shine Saint Monica, Saint Paula, Saint Elizabeth, Saint Hedwig, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Jane Frances, Saint Teresa, and so forth.

The Christian religion also defined the relationship between spouses. It is not passion, earthly interest, or fleeting affection that should draw them into this union, but above all the desire to sanctify themselves and their children. The bond of family life should not be despotism, but love—and not a love that withers as physical charms fade, dies out with failure, grows old with age, or snaps at the slightest adversity or temptation; rather, it should be a supernatural, pure, sacrificial, active, and steadfast love—in short, a love like that with which Christ the Lord loved His Church. The wife is not to be a lowly slave or merely an instrument of sensuality, but a loving companion—subject to her husband, indeed, “as the Church is subject to Christ,” yet possessing certain rights and a specific sphere of activity. To the husband, the wider world has been entrusted, and rather... ...the external sphere—comprising the altar and the tribunal of justice, the parliamentary seat and the armor of war, the plow and the factory or mine—while for the wife, the world is more confined and essentially internal: the family hearth, the child’s cradle, the sickbed, domestic virtue, and the scepter of love. The husband is the head of the family, the wife its heart; the husband governs, the wife gives life; the husband brings light into the home, the wife spiritual warmth; the husband provides the daily bread, the wife breaks it for the children; the husband prepares the yarn of virtue, the wife weaves garments from it for the entire family. And so that both may fulfill their duties, maintain harmony in their life together, and find their way to God, religion sustains them with the grace of the Sacrament (9). How great and holy is family life when understood in the Catholic spirit! Moreover, in every age, this religion imbues millions of its followers with a spirit of mortification and a love for voluntary virginity, enabling men to serve God more perfectly in the priesthood—and even undertake missionary work—while allowing women, whether in religious orders or in the secular world, to devote themselves more freely to prayer, penance, and works of mercy.

IV. And what, by contrast, does the anti-Christian spirit of the age offer? Above all, it cannot tolerate priestly celibacy, voluntary virginity, or religious life; it even restricts the freedom of the clergy and shuts down monasteries, while taking houses of ill repute under its protection.

Secondly, it is no ardent proponent of marriage, nor does it recommend it to its adherents—especially men—for why should one tie oneself down when one can live without bonds? Yet for anyone wishing to enter into such unions, no nobler motive is demanded, nor is there any great insistence on fidelity. Indeed, we see today many men who could establish a family home living in celibacy—not for the sake of some lofty ideal, as is the case with ministers of the altar, but simply for the sake of freedom—much like in Roman times, when a specific law (*Lex Papia Poppaea*) had to be enacted against those who remained unmarried. The result of this large number of unmarried men with loose moral principles is a massive increase in debauchery, especially in cities (10); this is further fueled by the official regulation of prostitution—instituted in countries such as France, Germany, and Austria—which stands in open defiance of the Sixth Commandment. In the wake of such debauchery follows a host of venereal diseases, wreaking terrible havoc (11).

The lack of strong religious principles also means that many marriages today — entered solely for material gain or fleeting attraction — present a sorry spectacle of breakdown.

Footnotes:

8. In classical Greece, the state of the family—due to the moral degradation of women—was so deplorable that even Thucydides lamented: “There are no fathers, no children, no spouses.” There, *hetaerae*—such as Aspasia, Phryne, Lamia, Pythionice, and others—attained honor and prominence, even in public life.

9. There is no doubt that the recent war will bring about a significant upheaval in this sphere as well, for the death of so many men will result in an unprecedented numerical preponderance of women. The number of marriages—and consequently births—will decline, while the ranks of unmarried women will grow; these women will be compelled to seek a livelihood and secure positions previously accessible only to men—a shift that will undoubtedly exert a profound influence on social and economic relations. How essential, then, will the support of religion be for these women, lest they stray from the right path and spread an even greater moral contagion.

10. Dr. J. Ude writes in the brochure *Unsere Schuld* (Vienna, 1917, p. 7) that in 1912 there were 543 officially regulated brothels in Austria—21 in the city of Graz alone—not to mention the countless clandestine prostitutes.

11. The same author writes (p. 8) that, according to Dr. Blaschko, one in five merchants, students, and officers suffers from syphilis. During the recent war, in March 1916, over 800 Austro-Hungarian soldiers were infected with venereal diseases—and a third of them were married men! As a remedy for this scourge, certain military commands recommended establishing separate brothels under military supervision and instructing soldiers on the use of prophylactic devices. Sensible and conscientious physicians, however, call for the abolition of prostitution regulation and advise everyone to practice complete abstinence until marriage.

Thirdly, the anti-religious spirit is a fierce enemy of the indissolubility of marriage; instead, wherever possible, it introduces civil marriage and divorce, knowing these to be powerful agents for undermining Christian life; it also advocates free love, or even sodomy (12). Yet, in the wake of these trends follow the breakdown of the family, the corruption of child-rearing, and the moral decay of society. In France alone, following the introduction of civil marriage in 1792, the courts granted 5,994 divorces within a span of 27 months. A century later—specifically in the year 1905—as many as 10,019 divorces were recorded in France (13), and in 1911, the figure reached 13,058; The most frequent cause here was adultery—rampant and increasingly severe—which French novelists portrayed in alluring terms. The situation is no better in other countries where divorce has been introduced; for instance, in the United States, the annual number of divorces reaches 122,000, while in Germany, there were 17,835 divorces in 1913.

Moreover, this same spirit of the times is no friend to children, viewing them as a burden and an impediment to a comfortable life; thus, invoking the pernicious theory of Malthus (14), it sets a maximum limit of two children. It is hardly surprising, then, that in some countries population growth is very sluggish, and that the heinous vices which once ran so rampant in the pagan world are rearing their heads again—particularly in France (15) and America. Venereal diseases also wreak terrible havoc, having spread alarmingly during the Great War (1914–1919) (16).

Finally, the anti-religious spirit of the times shatters the sanctity of the home; it draws the husband to clubs, social circles, cafés, and Masonic lodges, making the home a place alien to him, while it compels the woman of the upper classes to view life as mere amusement—leading her to focus on finery and romance novels, and to frequent theaters, cinemas, balls, concerts, and social calls, all so that she might forget God, the Church, and her family. It dazzles her with the glitter of false emancipation and fashionable feminism, casting her into realms hostile to her true vocation. After all, we hear that women abroad are forming clubs and lodges, participating in socialist and anarchist movements, publishing anti-religious journals, writing anti-ethical novels, fighting duels, smoking cigars in public, and seeking parliamentary seats (17); indeed, in America—that classic land of progress—they even appear in the pulpit and deliver lectures to men. Proponents of this brand of feminism held an international congress in 1900, where they drafted a program in an anti-Christian spirit. Signs of this pernicious emancipation are visible here as well—particularly in Warsaw, Kraków, and Lwów—with female university students leading the way.

Yet, following this—what De Maistre called the “aping of men”—comes the collapse of family life, perhaps the greatest malady of the 19th and 20th centuries; indeed, even Alexandre Dumas *fils*—though hardly a Cato—exclaimed in alarm: “Let woman do as she pleases, and soon there will be no family left in France” (18). Woe to society when woman turns away from Christ and follows the path of corruption.

Footnotes:

12. In Protestant Germany, sodomy found many adherents, even among the upper classes.

13. In contrast, the population of France, instead of showing relative growth, is steadily declining; in some departments, there are three deaths for every two births. While the average family in Germany has four children, in France the figure is barely two. In France, the population grew by only 0.01% in the single year of 1905, whereas in Germany it rose by 1.5%. According to official statistics, 773,969 children were born in France in 1907, while 793,889 people died—meaning there were 19,920 more deaths than births; in 1911, the number of births stood at 742,114 and deaths at 776,983. During two years of the terrible war (1914–1916), up to two million men in France were killed or died of their wounds, prompting newspapers to sound the alarm: “Let us save the French race!” The French parliament also addressed this issue in 1916. For instance, Deputy Benazet proposed legislation to guarantee women a state cash bonus for every third, fourth, and subsequent child. Another... A deputy named Peyroux submitted a proposal under which women who could prove they had given birth to at least a dozen children would receive the Legion of Honour cross, thereby creating a “Legion of Honour for Mothers.” However, the birth rate is also declining in Germany; whereas in 1876 there were 42 births per thousand inhabitants, by 1911 the figure had fallen to just 29. A similar trend was observed in Austria in 1913, which saw 61 fewer births than in 1910; consequently, the Austrian Episcopal Committee, during its deliberations (held from November 9 to 13, 1915), resolved to take a stand against this pernicious “Neo-Malthusianism” and to issue a warning to the Imperial-Royal government. On the other hand, the anti-religious camp advocates—as a means of increasing the birth rate—measures such as polygamy, granting illegitimate children the same status as legitimate ones, and even extending special state protection to children born out of wedlock.

14. Malthus (c. 1798) advocated reducing the population due to the difficulty of feeding it. There were those who advised forcibly preventing the poor from marrying (such as Stuart Mill).

15. According to Moigno (*Les splendeurs de la foi*, Vol. I, p. 174), organized infanticide is said to exist in France, perpetrated by wet nurses. Masturbation, abortion, and sodomy are also rampant there; yet other countries are not free from these vices either. Statistical figures from 1910 show that in that year, France had 1,350,000 unmarried men, 1,804,710 childless families, 2,966,171 families with one child, and 2,661,978 families with two children. This is hardly surprising, given that—according to the newspaper *Le Matin*—there are ten voluntary abortions annually in the city of Lyon alone. In Germany, the bishops issued a pastoral letter in 1914 condemning the rampant practice of masturbation and the use or sale of contraceptives.

16. Cf. the same author, *Pastoral Medicine*, 2nd ed.

17. The unlawful acts committed by “suffragettes” in England are well known; yet women achieved victory in this arena, given that even in Poland they were granted the right to vote and to stand for election to the first Polish Sejm (January 26, 1919).

18. See Moigno 1 c.

The Catholic religion does not condemn wholesome amusements or activities; it does not consign women to ignorance and domestic servitude, as Islam does (19); it does not curtail their legitimate rights, nor does it hinder them from seeking new—provided they are honorable — means of livelihood; it neither bars them from the halls of learning nor condemns women’s economic and social associations. On the contrary, it allows women—in the beautiful words of De Maistre—to aspire to sublimity, provided it is a sublimity befitting a woman (20). Yet, at the same time, it places family life under special protection, striving to shape it according to the ideal embodied by the Holy Family, and it views the true greatness of both husband and wife as lying in self-sacrifice and the fulfillment of duties—foremost among which is the upbringing of children.

V. In antiquity, the child was an unfortunate being. The father, as the independent master of life and death, could kill the child, cast it out to be devoured by dogs, or offer it to the gods, for the law authorized such actions, and philosophers emboldened him to take them (21). Even among the Jews, a father was permitted to sell his daughter “to be a servant” (Exodus 31:7). Many peoples disposed of children who were infirm or weak; indeed, the Law of the Twelve Tables mandated the putting to death of boys who were notably ugly or deformed (*insignes ad deformitatem*), and the practice of killing or abandoning children persists in China to this day. Furthermore, in certain places—such as Sparta—healthy children were taken from their families and raised for the purposes of the state. It was Jesus Christ who defended children against paternal tyranny and singled them out with His blessing; the Church, in turn, extended maternal care over children, not only condemning—under pain of anathema—the killing, abandonment, or abortion of the young, but also establishing orphanages and homes for foundlings to shelter destitute children. (22), as well as nursery schools and regular schools. Christ also commanded children to show obedience and love toward their parents—just as He Himself was obedient to His Mother Mary and His guardian Joseph—while simultaneously laying upon parents the duty of raising their children. This is a great and holy undertaking—akin to breathing life into children anew, yet a spiritual and moral life—and in this endeavor, religion serves as the primary aid.

On the one hand, it brings down the supernatural aid of God’s grace; on the other, it enlightens the mind, strengthens the will, forms character, guards against vices, and instills virtues. It also invests parental and pedagogical authority with a higher sanctity, makes obedience a duty ordained by God, and upholds discipline through powerful motives—motives that the threat of punishment or appeals to ambition and selfishness can never replace. Without religion, therefore, sound upbringing is simply impossible (23). The wisdom of all ages has acknowledged this. If we consult the philosophers of old, Plato answers for them: “One must instill in the heart of a young man the most beautiful fear of all—the fear of God, which we have termed reverence—a fear that excludes all others” (24). Cicero affirms the same: “Remove reverence for the divine, and faith and justice will vanish” (25).

Footnotes:

19. Cf. by the same author: *The Holy Land and Islam*, Vol. II, p. 201, Lwów 1875.

20. *Lettres et opuscules inédits*, Vol. I. In the Middle Ages, certain nuns distinguished themselves through extraordinary learning—such as Hrotsvitha (d. 984), St. Hildegard (d. 1179), St. Gertrude (d. 1290), and others.

21. The most eminent philosophers—such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca, as well as Plutarch and Tacitus—condoned infanticide. It was not until Constantine the Great that the killing of a child by a father was placed on the same legal footing as patricide.

22. The plight of foundlings was addressed as early as the synods of Arles (412) and Mâcon (581). The largest foundling home owes its origins to Innocent III. The work done in this area by Saint Vincent de Paul is well known.

23. Even Diderot himself, in his *Traité d’éducation publique*, asserts that knowledge of religion is a primary and essential need for young people.

24. On Laws, Book III

25. „Pietate‎ ‎adversus‎ ‎Deos‎ ‎sublata,‎ ‎fid.es‎ ‎etiam‎ ‎et‎ ‎justitia‎ ‎tollitur (De‎ ‎natura‎ ‎Deor.).

Among Catholic thinkers, it suffices to cite one who is regarded as an authority on matters of education; One such figure is the renowned Bishop Bossuet. “Let the young man”—these are his words—”acquire learning befitting his station, and even that which may in any way cultivate the mind, impart refinement, adorn life, and command the respect of the learned... But above all, let him acquire—from his earliest years and, so to speak, from the cradle—the fear of God, that strongest pillar of human life” (26).

In the Protestant camp, this view was endorsed by the distinguished scholar of our time, Dr. Fr. Forster—currently a professor at the University of Munich—who, in lectures on character formation delivered in Vienna in 1911, strongly emphasized that character formation and the upbringing of youth in general must be grounded in religion—that every teacher ought to be deeply religious—and that the Catholic Church was and... ...is the best school for forging great characters; that upbringing without God’s grace is impossible; that parents and teachers possess a powerful educational tool in prayer; and that, in accordance with the Apostle’s call and the motto of Pope Pius X, one must “renew all things in Christ” (27).

VI. Christian society formerly adhered to these very principles; it was not until the eighteenth century that J.J. Rousseau—the very man who wallowed in the filth of debauchery and abandoned five of his illegitimate children to a foundling hospital—put forward, in his notorious work *Émile*, the paradoxical claim that children should not be taught about God, the soul, or the mysteries of religion, but rather that one should wait until they had grown up and, through independent inquiry, arrived at a concept of God and formed a religion of their own. The Genevan sophist failed to realize that, by expunging all positive religion from education, he had based his pedagogical system on an absurd utopia; For if he himself confessed: “It is no small matter to know that God exists, yet once we have arrived at this knowledge and ask ourselves what God is, our mind becomes confused and wanders, so that we do not know what to think of it”—how, then, can a teenager examine all philosophical theories, all the religions of the world, and arrive at the truth?

Who fails to see that such a system leads directly to atheism and moral license? Indeed, it was the French Revolution that instituted such a system; and what did Portalis say about it before the Legislative Body in 1800? He stated that for ten years, children in France had given themselves over to idleness and vagrancy, growing up without any concept of God or sense of justice and injustice; for “there is no instruction without upbringing, and no upbringing without morality and religion” (28). Napoleon I also recognized this; immediately upon assuming power in France, he restored religious instruction in schools, and at a meeting of the Council of State, he expressed his views on the matter thus: “I would rather see village children in the hands of a man who knows the catechism well than in the hands of a know-it-all who possesses no...” ...no moral foundations, nor any guiding ideals. Religion safeguards minds against senseless beliefs. If you strip a nation of its faith, you will raise nothing but highwaymen and bandits.

The French Third Republic, however, failed to heed this warning; instead, under the influence of Freemasons, freethinkers, socialists, and radicals, it banished religious instruction—and even the very name of God—from schools (29). Yet, regarding this modern type of school, Jules Simon—himself a rationalist and a Freemason—rightly observed: “A school without religion has raised scoundrels and criminals for us.” Indeed, it was from among the youth educated in this manner that the so-called *apaches*—highway bandits—emerged. Regrettably, the anti-religious spirit of the age turns a blind eye to humanity’s grim experiences and, with extraordinary vehemence, excludes religion not only from schools (30) but also from upbringing within the home.

A father and mother are not merely the first educators but also the first ideals whom children strive to emulate; How great, then, is the duty incumbent upon parents to live truly Catholic lives themselves and to raise their children to be upright and zealous Catholics. Yet, in our times, there are parents who do not have their children baptized but raise them without any religious affiliation—living, in effect, worse than pagans, who abhorred atheism. There are parents

who themselves scandalize their children by speaking mockingly and disrespectfully in their presence about the dogmas of the faith and religious obligations, by disparaging the Holy Father and the clergy, by allowing them to read books and newspapers with pernicious tendencies, and by teaching them contempt for religion through their own indifference or by flouting the precepts of the Church. There are parents—even among the wealthy and the faithful—who fail to concern themselves with instilling in... ...in children deeper principles and sentiments of faith, but instead content themselves with superficial catechism instruction and mere outward forms; rather than frequently speaking to their children about God, training them in prayer, arranging for shared spiritual reading, and accompanying them to Holy Mass and the Sacraments, they leave this all-important matter to strangers — often even to irreligious individuals. There are parents who allow adolescents to read risqué novels and sensational newspaper chronicles, or to look at nude illustrations, and who even take them along to immoral performances in theaters, cinemas, and cabarets. Is it any wonder that young people are so easily corrupted—especially where the school exerts a harmful influence—that today one encounters teenage skeptics, or worse, ardent propagators of materialism and socialism; that a lack of faith is invariably accompanied by a lack of virtue and discipline; that masturbation is becoming increasingly widespread among older students, and venereal diseases are appearing with greater frequency; that such noxious weeds as anarchism and nihilism take root in such fertile soil; and that suicides are becoming increasingly common among the youth? And who is to blame for this, if not, above all, the parents? May they finally come to understand this and base their entire family life upon the unshakable foundations of the Catholic religion!

VII. If there is anyone who ought to strive for this—especially we Poles—it is us, for after religion, family life has always constituted our primary strength. There were many errors in our politics and many excesses in our public life—to the point where the saying arose that “Poland stands by disorder”—yet our nation was always rich in domestic virtues. It was only the bad example set by two dissolute kings—Augustus II and Stanisław August—along with ties to the debauched court of Versailles under Louis XV and that of St. Petersburg under Catherine II, as well as the influence of immoral French philosophy and Masonic lodges, that corrupted the once-unblemished customs of the upper classes and loosened many a family bond, leading to divorces and public scandals. However, this contagion was not universal, and the rod of chastisement healed many of the families afflicted by it. Today, thank God, family life among us is purer than in many other country—and this is precisely our strongest fortress, our unconquerable stronghold.

Truly, storms may shake the vessel of our homeland; the waves of human hatred, slander, and injustice may rise high; neighboring states may conspire to bring about the ruin of a resurrected Poland—yet they can do us no harm so long as we hold fast to the Catholic faith and to good morals; for a nation that possesses faith and domestic virtue, and is guided in politics by reason and patience, is invincible. Therefore, let us above all defend our faith and our domestic virtue.

Footnotes:

26. Delft Institute.

27. Dr. Foerster also spoke out against the co-education of boys and girls—a practice praised in our times but actually harmful—as well as against so-called “Americanism,” that is, the excessive cultivation of the body accompanied by the neglect of the soul.

28. Freppel ‎La ‎revolution ‎frañaise ‎a‎ ‎propos ‎du‎ ‎centenaire‎ ‎de‎ ‎1789, p. 87.

29. The liberal German newspaper *Münchener Zeitung* offered this assessment: “France has replaced religious instruction in its schools with the teaching of morality—a blend of slippery rationalist dialectic and exaggerated chauvinism.”

30. In Austria, this goal was pursued by associations such as *Freie Schule*, *Deutscher Schulverein*, *Wandervogel*, and *Neuer Kulturbund*, while in Warsaw, the movement known as *Myśl Niepodległa* (”Independent Thought”) did the same. Proponents of educational reform are attempting to establish institutions for young women in Warsaw and elsewhere that exclude religious instruction and devotional practices. Even more alarming, at teachers’ conferences held in the Kingdom of Poland in 1916, 1917, and 1919, calls were made to remove religious instruction from all schools! Similarly, in Germany, a movement within Protestant and liberal circles—gaining momentum since 1914—has sought to eliminate all social and denominational distinctions from the modern school system, thereby also removing religious instruction.

31. A medical survey ordered in Lwów in 1903 revealed that 240 students in local *gymnasiums* were infected—and how many must have gone undetected!

I. Religion, if it is to be true, must stamp its stamp on all authorities. ‎man, and ‎hence, ‎not ‎omit‎ also ‎the ‎heart‎ as‎ the ‎focus‎ of ‎feelings.‎ No‎ it flows from that‎ that “religion” is “a thing” of “feeling” itself, “how” it is, according to Schleiermacher, Jacobi, and others. Protestants are held by the so-called modernists (1); because religion is not based on dogmas, that is, on certain and immutable truths, revealed by God and infallibly preserved in the Church ‎taught ‎and‎ by ‎reason, ‎enlightened‎ by ‎faith, ‎accepted, ‎is‎, ‎according to the apt words of the scholar Newman, a “dream” “sleepy” and “idle” “chimera”. “If”, then, we are talking about the influence of religion on the human heart. It only means that the Catholic religion satisfies the deepest, most delicate, and most sacred needs of the heart.

II. The human heart strives with all its might for happiness, and it is not illusory, not negligible; and he seeks happiness in the satisfaction of his desires, that is, in the possession of what he loves. because love is the main spring, and yes, let’s say, the soul of the heart. Striving It is common to all people, but to the object of love, i.e. the way to happiness. a ‎fundamental‎ difference.

Two, namely, roads open up to every person, and two, on them, signposts; on One of them is the inscription: Satisfy your desires, and the other: Fulfill your duty and ‎seek‎ God. ‎The ‎first ‎way ‎is ‎taken‎ by ‎great crowds ‎of ‎people ‎and ‎with ‎all ‎strength‎ he is looking for pleasure, wealth, fame, hoping to find happiness in them. And what do they find? A bit of a sweet drink that intoxicates you for a while, but in the end The surfeit makes for some brilliant epigrams, the acquisition and maintenance of which causes a lot of torment. A little bit of shimmering smoke, which is sometimes scattered by just a breath of wind. Is this happiness? Truly, If there were no other happiness, it would not be worth being human, because all this is not worthy of a human heart, and only for a moment will be able to intoxicate it. Xerxes, who offers a generous reward for inventing new pleasures, either Alexander the Great dissatisfied in the midst of splendor and glory and victories, or Solomon calling on the throne: Vanity of vanities; or that Prince Bismarck, openly confessing to several lords. congratulating him for his glory and triumph: “Rarely have I been truly happy in my life” (2), ‎— ‎witness‎ and, moreover, ‎all of humanity.

Others, aiming higher, seek happiness in the purer sentiments of love and friendship, in family life, in the pursuit of knowledge, or in dedication to great ideals. All of this is good, provided it aligns with God’s will; yet none of it suffices for true happiness, for a void remains at the bottom of the heart—one that cannot be filled—and a sense of ennui dogs a person’s steps like a shadow.

Is happiness, then, merely an empty phantom—like a mirage in the wilderness—and human life a succession of constant illusions and disappointments? Was Seneca right when he cried out in despair: “If you choose to believe those who delve more deeply into the truth, you will understand that life itself is a punishment. Cast upon this deep, turbulent sea—heaving with waves that now lift us up for a fleeting advantage, now cast us down to greater harm, and forever raging—we have no fixed place; we are constantly tossed about, colliding with one another and living in ceaseless fear of the shipwreck we so often suffer. And so, sailing this stormy sea exposed to every tempest, we find no haven but death” (3)?

III. Indeed, a pagan philosopher might have spoken thus; but the Christian holds a different view of life. For him, life is not a mindless tossing upon foaming waves with no destination other than nothingness, but a voyage ever steering toward the port of eternity; it is not the sport of sinister fates, but a great task—one the catechism expresses in a few words: Man is created to know, love, and serve the Lord God, and to be united with Him after death. God is man’s happiness in time and eternity; He alone, as the Supreme Good, can satisfy the longing for a good that is neither illusory, nor mutable, nor fleeting—and as an Infinite Being, He can fill the bottomless abyss of the human heart. The heart knows this, and therefore, even amidst earthly happiness... It feels unhappy; and just as a magnetic needle trembles ceaselessly until it turns toward the pole, so too is it in constant unrest until it rests in God.

On behalf of millions of souls, that great philosopher of the fifth century, Saint Augustine, voiced this sentiment: “You have made us, O God, and our heart is restless until it rests in You”; and the nineteenth-century philosopher Maine de Biran echoed the very same thought. Here is what he wrote in his journal: “A rushing torrent sweeps man along from birth until death, and nowhere does he find a place to cast his anchor... For a long time, I too allowed myself to be carried away by the stream of events, opinions, and changes—both external and internal—in short, by everything that passes like a shadow. Ultimately, I must anchor myself to that Being who alone remains unchanging, and who is the true source of my solace in this life and my hope for the future. To safeguard myself against despair, I shall think of God.” and I will take refuge in His bosom (4).

Unfortunately, not everyone acts this way. Indeed, many flee from God to avoid a face-to-face encounter with Him; hence the craving for distraction, the fear of solitude (5), the aversion to religious reflection—and especially to confession—contrasted with a frenzy for business dealings, social calls, travel, amusements, correspondence, news, and gossip; the voracious consumption of countless light books and magazines; and, finally, the pursuit of trifles and the constant devising of new schemes—akin to building houses of cards that their very creators, like children at play, knock down a moment later.

Meanwhile, the heart yearns for God, strains toward God, and cries out for God, just as fledglings cry out for food. Woe to it if, instead of God, it receives the mud of the earth, for then—in the words of Saint Augustine—it becomes earth itself. But who shall give God to the heart? The Catholic religion (6).

IV. It is this religion that reveals to the heart the wondrously comforting truth that God is not only our Creator and Lord but also our most loving Father, who guards us as the apple of His eye and constantly holds us in the embrace of His care—like a mother with her infant—so that man may, at any moment, and especially in times of distress, temptation, and suffering, call out to God with childlike trust: “Our Father, who art in heaven.” And since man desires to draw as close as possible to this Father and to have Him—so to speak—here on earth, the love of God, rich in inventiveness, has provided for this as well.

For the only-begotten Son of God came into the world in a human body and died for us on the Cross, to reconcile the world to the Father in Himself; and upon departing from this earth, He not only left us His truth, His law, His grace, His Mother, and His Church—not only did He make that Church fruitful and sanctify it through the action of the Holy Spirit—but He continues to live among us, whether in the supreme Head of the Church and the visible priesthood, or in that wondrous Mystery of the Altar; He lives as our Father, Friend, Physician, Priest, and King—laying aside His majesty, yet boundless in His love—to be not only the light of our intellect and the strength of our will, but also the comfort of our heart.

Moreover, since man desires to have a mother in the life of faith as well, Divine Love has fulfilled this wish. For by its gift, the Catholic Church serves as a mother on earth, taking man under its care from the very cradle and guiding him throughout his earthly journey—sanctifying his every step and soothing every hardship—never abandoning him even as he dies, nor forgetting him after death. In heaven, however, the Mother is the Virgin Mother of God—solemnly proclaimed as such on Calvary—who is so full of goodness that she embraces all of humanity within her heart.

To ensure that man would not lack for brothers—including spiritual ones—Divine Love proclaimed not only that all people are brothers as children of the one Father, but also that we have brothers in heaven—the Angels and Saints—who ceaselessly intercede before God’s throne for the wayfarers on earth.

Religion speaks of all this to the human heart and, through God’s grace, awakens within it love—that most perfect virtue which unites man with God and makes him like God; that most fruitful virtue which introduces other virtues into the soul, just as the queen bee leads the entire swarm behind her; that most powerful virtue which no sword can pierce, no fire can burn through, no waters can quench, and no abyss can swallow, for it conquers all things, even death itself (7); and finally, that sweetest virtue which grants the heart a source of happiness that is truly pure and enduring, for it gives it God—and with God, true life—of which Saint Augustine rightly said: *Vita nostra dilectio est* (8)—our life is love.

When the French King Charles IX asked Torquato Tasso who was the happiest of all, the poet replied: “God.” “And who comes after God?” “He who is most like God.” The experience of centuries has confirmed this, for the saints were and are the happiest of people; indeed, one of them, amidst great labors and hardships, cried out: “Lord, enough, enough! Hold back the stream of Your consolations, for my weak heart cannot bear them” (9); while another did not hesitate to say: “Lord God, You have deceived me. When I dedicated myself to Your service, I imagined that my life would henceforth be full of struggles and hardships; yet I see that my spirit has never been more at peace, nor my heart more joyful, than since I came to love Your law and Your cross.”

Long ago, Tertullian described the happiness of the true Christian in these words: “Can there be anything more delightful than reconciliation with God, the Father and Lord; than the unveiling of truth, the recognition of error, and the forgiveness of such great past offenses? Is there any greater pleasure than loathing pleasure itself, than despising all things temporal, than true freedom, a clear conscience, contentment with little, and the absence of fear of death?” (De spect. 29). Indeed, the religion of the Cross is a religion of true happiness and holy joy.

The renowned French writer Auguste Nicolas recounts how a man lacking faith once laughingly said to a Sister of Charity—a woman distinguished by her spirit of self-sacrifice—”You will be sorely disappointed if there is no eternal life after death, for your mortifications and sacrifices will go unrewarded.” “No, sir,” the nun replied, “I am already sufficiently rewarded here on earth” (10). This implies that even if there were no eternity, it would still be better to live according to religious principles—thereby curbing one’s desires and doing good for others—than to indulge one’s passions and selfishness. Yet eternity does exist, a realm where God Himself will be the reward of the virtuous soul; indeed, even here on earth, He fills the soul that “lives by faith” with the happiness of His love—which serves as further proof that this faith is true.

Footnotes:

1. See Ch. I and Ch. IX.

2. Cited by Dr. G. Grupp in the work *Jenseitreligion* (2nd and 3rd editions), p. 64.

3. On Polybius.

4. Reading: ‎Nicolas‎ ‎L’art‎ ‎de‎ ‎croire.‎ ‎T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎L.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎Chap.‎ ‎XII.

5. “There is nothing so unbearable for man,” said Pascal, “as to find himself in complete silence—without passions, without interests, distractions, or pursuits. He then feels his nothingness, his abandonment, his powerlessness, his emptiness. Immediately, there rises from his soul boredom, gloom, listlessness, sadness, anger, and despair.”

6. Read: ‎Alb. ‎Stoeckl: ‎Das‎ ‎Christenthum‎ ‎oder‎ ‎die‎ ‎grossen‎ ‎Fragender‎ ‎Gegenwart‎ ‎I‎ ‎B.‎ ‎Erste‎ ‎Studie‎ ‎B.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Alb.‎ ‎Weiss‎ ‎Apologie‎ ‎des‎ ‎Christenthums‎ ‎vom‎ ‎Siandpunkte‎ ‎der‎ ‎Sittenlehre‎ ‎II,‎ ‎B.‎ ‎Vierzehnter‎ ‎Vortrag.

7. See, by the same author: *The Spiritual Life, or Christian Perfection*, Vol. I, Ch. XVI, II.

8. In‎ Ps. ‎ 54,‎ 7.

9. Saint Francis Xavier.

10. Saint John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, expressed a similar sentiment: “I often think to myself that, even if there were no life beyond the grave, it would already be no small happiness to be able to love God in this life, to serve Him, and to be able to do something for His glory.”

He also brings happiness to the soul that “lives by faith” here on earth with His love—which is also proof that this faith is genuine.

A drop of such happiness is also granted to those who return to God from their wayward paths. In the 19th century, divine grace led an actress—who had been drinking deeply from the murky waters of this world—to repentance, while the words of the great preacher Father Ravignan revealed to her a different, true happiness found in God. After several years of this new life, she wrote to the priest: “Oh, Father, how much solace I have tasted over these past six years, and how many hardships and illnesses I have endured. Yet God was in my heart... Oh, how I pity those who never think of God. In the love He pours into us, we find everything we need here on earth. This life holds charms unknown to the world... I am happy, Father—happy.” “...a happiness that the world can neither give nor take away; I am happy because I believe that I belong entirely to Jesus” (11).

Yet, to taste such happiness, one must overcome base desires, undergo the discipline of self-denial, embrace the cross, and surrender oneself wholly to the Lord God. For slaves to passion—and even for the duplicitous and the half-hearted who seek to serve both God and their own idols—there is no happiness, only ceaseless unrest. Their hearts are like a boat tossed by waves and constantly driven away from the shores of happiness, until they steer into the harbor of repentance—and through it, into the harbor of love; a path pointed out to them by religion. It is religion, and religion alone, that grants the heart true happiness—insofar as that is possible on earth—while preparing a more perfect and unending happiness in eternity.

VI. She sheds the radiance of her charm upon every moment of life, like the rising sun that gilds mountain peaks with its light; and though she bids us constantly strive toward heaven, she does not lose sight of the earth. She condemns neither material abundance nor wholesome comforts, but teaches us to use them rightly; she does not wither the heart, as passion does, nor stifle anything that has a right to exist; she does not disturb family happiness, nor hinder social obligations or civic and scholarly pursuits; she does not demand the renunciation of love for one’s country, nor forbid a moderate concern for prosperity, education, industry, and material progress; Indeed, it purifies, elevates, and sanctifies everything it touches, such that Montesquieu rightly observed: “It is a strange thing: the Christian religion seems to aim only at happiness in the life to come, yet it brings us happiness in this life as well” (12). The positivist Hippolyte Taine also acknowledged this: “Man needs religion to contemplate the infinite and to live a good, honest life. Were religion suddenly to vanish, he would feel a vast, painful void within himself, and one’s fellow man would become an enemy” (13).

How unjust, then, is the charge made by Strauss, Paulsen, and others that the religion of Christ breeds pessimism. True, its emblem is the Cross, and its watchword is the struggle against base desires—especially lust, which brings such torment and degradation upon humanity; yet, by rooting out the cult of Venus and other idols—something Goethe (14) and like-minded neo-pagans so deeply lament—it opens up abundant sources of pure and enduring joy.

The Catholic religion offers the human spirit—as we have seen—the truth: a truth that is complete and certain, one that fully satisfies its needs and unveils the mysteries of God; and what is more desirable to the spirit than truth? “O my God,” rightly says Saint Francis de Sales, “what joy fills our spirit when, raised above the light of nature, it begins to grasp the holy truths of faith. Truly, the soul melts and dissolves upon hearing the words of the Heavenly Bridegroom—words sweeter and more delightful than the honey of all human knowledge” (15). What a wealth of light, enchantment, and consolation is contained in the Church’s teaching regarding the manger of Bethlehem, the Cross on Golgotha, the mystery of the Altar, the Heart of Jesus, the protection of the Mother of God, Purgatory, and eternal life. To what heights of wisdom... ...attained by a mind enlightened by faith and perfectly loving the Lord God! Indeed, there were Saints—such as Saint Didacus, Saint Paschal, Saint Catherine of Siena, and others—who, despite having no formal education, advanced further in the knowledge of divine things than the profoundest theologians; for love is the eye of the heart, often perceiving what the eye of reason fails to see; thus, Hugh of Saint Victor rightly said: “He who loves more ardently, knows better. Where there is love, there is light” (16).

The well-known words of Saint Augustine: “Unhappy is he who knows all things but does not know You, O Lord; happy is he who knows You, even if he knows nothing else besides You”; ...confirmed not only by all believers but also by all non-believers. One of the latter was the renowned German philosopher Schopenhauer. Throughout his life, he labored to utterly demolish the edifice of religion, yet on his deathbed (d. 1860), he cried out: “Oh God, oh my God!” When one of the attending physicians remarked that, according to Schopenhauer’s own philosophy, God did not exist at all, he replied: “In suffering, a philosophy without God does not suffice; I shall approach the matter differently if I recover” (17). How cruel, then, is socialism, for it tears faith in God—and with it the hope of a happy eternity—away from the poor and the toiling. Not long ago—on November 7, 1906—a prominent specialist in Paris named Emil Joindry ended his life by suicide. On the day of his death, he wrote the following words: “I believed in greater integrity and sincerity than I found among people. The world is terribly corrupt and vile!… Among the socialists, with whom I lived for fifteen years, I experienced the deepest revulsion and disillusionment. I lacked the courage to withdraw in time and sank into the mire. Oh, if only I could begin life anew!… Were it not for the fatal necessity driving me to suicide, I would gladly become a Catholic. This is my final thought on earth.”

The Catholic religion gives God to the heart, and with Him, every good; it warms the heart with holy sentiments and ennobles it with lofty motives, thereby influencing the will and bringing forth those magnificent works of faith, piety, and charity of which only the Catholic Church can boast.

Through God, religion grants the heart a peace it cannot find apart from Him; for it teaches the heart self-denial and love, bids it detach itself from harmful attachments, and supports it—through means such as prayer, confession, Holy Communion, and the like—in the struggle against the passions. It restores peace even to a sullied heart, provided that, in humble prayer, the heart turns to God, sincerely repents of its transgressions, and seeks salvation in the Sacrament of Penance.

The Catholic religion brings happiness to the human heart by opening up—through external divine worship, and especially through devotional acts, spiritual practices, and liturgical ceremonies—an inexhaustible source of blissful consolations and powerful incentives to do good. Only a devout person can fully perceive and appreciate how noble, sweet, and influential Catholic worship is. It is no wonder that this worship makes a profound impression even on non-believers, leading many a non-Catholic into the fold of the Church. It also serves as a powerful bond uniting people of different social stations, and thus holds great significance from a social perspective as well.

The Catholic religion expands and ennobles the human heart, inclining it toward a love of truth, beauty, and goodness—in a word, the ideal; consequently, it becomes a ceaselessly flowing fount of sublime inspirations which, as Vauvenargues rightly observed, are born within the heart. Just as it elevated ancient philosophy—purified of error—to previously unknown heights and made it the “handmaid of theology,” so too did it harness the fine arts to its chariot, opening up before them—within its dogmas and liturgy—magnificent horizons reaching toward the heavens. It was this religion that dictated the *Divine Comedy* to Dante, painted exquisite Madonnas upon the canvas of Raphael Sanzio’s imagination, sculpted the famous *Deposition from the Cross* with Michelangelo, and—alongside the masters of the Middle Ages—raised up cathedrals that soar toward the sky. ...Gothic; it created—alongside Palestrina, Allegri, and Beethoven—magnificent symphonies. It has been rightly said that Catholicism is spirit made tangible, for both its ceremonies and its mysteries speak to the mind, the imagination, and the heart, awakening higher aspirations in the souls of the faithful. And if today the poets’ lute has fallen silent—or yields only feeble and often discordant notes—and if masters of the brush and chisel have, with few exceptions, pressed art (that daughter of heaven) into the service of base realism, it is because they have forsaken the source of the purest and most sublime inspiration: religion (18).

VII. Finally, religion brings comfort to the heart when it is weighed down by suffering. Life is not easy even for the fortunate of this world, for cares, disappointments, humiliations, and pangs of conscience lie in wait for them too—as do longing, fear, boredom, surfeit, and the specter of death; what, then, of those to whom a fuller cup of sorrow has fallen? And where, indeed, is there comfort for the suffering?

Footnotes:

11. Vie‎ ‎du‎ ‎Pere‎ ‎Ravignan‎ ‎par‎ ‎Ponlevoy.‎ ‎Reader‎ ‎Nicolas‎ ‎Lari‎ ‎decroire‎ ‎T.‎ ‎II.‎ ‎L.‎ ‎IV‎ ‎Ch.‎ ‎VII.

12. Esprit ‎ des ‎ lois ‎ L. ‎ XXIV ‎ Ch. ‎ III.

13. Les origines de la France contemporaine. T. II, Chap. III, III, 2.

14. Vener.‎ ‎Epigramme‎ ‎n.‎ ‎67.

15. Traite‎ ‎de‎ ‎I’amour‎ ‎de‎ ‎Dieu‎ ‎L.‎ ‎III.‎ ‎Chr.‎ ‎9.

16. Sent. 25.

17. J. Janssen Zeit Zeit und Lebensbilder Freiburg 1875.

18. Goethe himself declared: “Nur solange die Menschen religiös sind, sind sie auch produktiv” (Conversation with Reimer, March 26, 1814). The notion that literature and the fine arts need not concern themselves with religion and ethics is, in principle, absurd, and its consequences are monstrous. (Cf. Fr. Al. Pechnik, *Kościół i Kultura* [Church and Culture], Lwów 1914, p. 55).

Ancient philosophers could not explain the origin of evil (19), and they had no remedy for life’s afflictions other than apathy—that is, a scorn for them; in dire times, they advised fleeing from suffering—meaning, abruptly cutting short a life grown too painful. Even thinkers such as Sophocles or Euripides described human life as a misfortune. Pliny likewise calls man “a being full of contradictions, the most wretched of creatures, for other creatures have no needs or desires that cannot be satisfied. His nature is a lie, the greatest misery coupled with the greatest arrogance. — Amidst so many and such great sufferings, he possesses at least one saving grace: the ability to take his own life” (20). Similarly, modern philosophy—and anti-Christian literature in general—stands helpless in the face of suffering; through its apostle Renan, it prescribes virtue, truth, art, women(!), luxury(!), and alcohol(!) as remedies—while through the voice of Nietzsche, it advocates the unbridled enjoyment of life. Moreover, in its search for solace apart from God, it goes so far in the nineteenth century as to extol a return to “Nirvana”—that is, to self-annihilation (Hartmann).

Under the sway of this philosophy of despair, many unhappy people—having extinguished the light of faith within themselves—see no other recourse but to imitate Sardanapalus: that is, to cut short a life that can no longer be enjoyed (21); others, meanwhile, drag themselves through this world like Dante’s shades—melancholy and tormented, bearing the arrow of sorrow and bitterness in their hearts, begging created things for a drop of sweetness, if only to forget their misery for a moment (22).

Only the Catholic religion truly explains the origin of suffering in the world—demonstrating its significance within the governance of Providence as a means for our conversion, purification, and perfection—while presenting the supreme model of patience in the Crucified Savior, the Sorrowful Mother, and the holy martyrs, and offering genuine consolation. One such comfort is the voice of faith, affirming that God governs us and that we must always adore the Lord’s right hand—even when He chastises us—for all things work together for the good of those who love the Lord God. Another such comfort is the voice of hope, assuring us that we shall soon pass from this valley of tears to a land of happiness, where God will bestow a diadem of glory and a torrent of bliss in reward for holy deeds and sufferings endured with fortitude. A source of such comfort is the voice of love, telling us that since our Savior Jesus Christ died for us on the Cross, we too ought to bear our own crosses willingly. Such comfort is found in the presence of our Father and Savior in the Mystery of the Altar, in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, in the tender heart of the Mother of God, in the Church’s solicitous care, in prayer that obtains heavenly aid, in penance that reconciles the sinful soul with God, and in Communion, which brings the Giver of grace into that soul. Such comfort is found in the entire liturgy of the Church, which speaks powerfully to the heart—especially in the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, the prayer of the Rosary, and devotions for the dead that soothe the sorrow of losing loved ones.

All these consolations—which are to be found nowhere but in the Catholic religion—so greatly strengthen the heart that, while it may indeed weep (for it is permitted to weep), it accepts suffering courageously and with resignation to God’s will; nay, more—inflamed by the love of God, it rejoices in suffering and gives thanks for it, echoing Saint John Chrysostom in exile: “Glory to God for all things”; or Blessed Humiliana in severe illness: “Blessed be You, my Love”; or Saint Teresa throughout her life: “Lord, either to suffer or to die.” Rightly, then, has the Catholic religion been called the religion of the Cross, yet also the religion of true joy; for this joy flows from the purest and most abundant source—namely, the love of God and of one’s neighbor.

And do not think, reader, that these spiritual consolations are merely a figment of the imagination. No—they are a reality attested to by as many witnesses as there are believers. Awaken from the sleep of death the millions who made the journey to Golgotha ​​before us, and ask them what gave them the strength to bear the cross of life; And they will answer you: the Catholic religion. Ask the millions who suffer today what protects them from despair; they will answer you: the Catholic religion. The same will be said by the laborers toiling by the sweat of their brow to earn bread for large families; by mothers watching their beloved children die; by the poor Lazaruses lying in hospitals; and by the abandoned and betrayed who have known bitter disappointments in life. Just look more closely at the works of this religion—how, like a good mother, she dries the mourner’s tear, cools the sick person’s fever, wipes the sweat from the laborer’s brow, offers bread and patience to the poor, clasps the orphan to her bosom, fortifies the weary with the balm of hope, carries the wounded soul to the hospital of penance, and opens the cloister gate to those thirsting for peace and perfection.

History bears witness to what the Catholic religion has done and continues to do to alleviate human suffering—specifically, the number of religious orders, associations, and institutions it has established for this purpose (23).

And how salutary are the remedies it offers to those souls who, tormented by the pangs of conscience, wish to cast off the burden of sin and return to God from their wayward paths—what great comfort is found in confessing one’s faults to a priest, the representative of Christ, and receiving absolution. This is deeply felt by anyone who confesses willingly and sincerely, whereas those who shun confession—or are unfamiliar with it—often carry a veritable hell within their souls.

VIII. The power of this religion manifests itself even in the face of death. In the pagan world, death filled people with fear—and often, no doubt, with despair—for belief in the immortality of the soul was shaken in many minds, or cast but a faint light beyond the grave; indeed, Socrates himself, as he lay dying, said to his friends: “Know that I shall soon find myself in the company of righteous men, yet I cannot say this with certainty.” While it is true that Plato (24), Cicero, and Seneca spoke more boldly of immortality, their voices were drowned out by Epicureanism, which persuaded people that nothingness lay beyond the grave and encouraged them to cut their lives short whenever they could no longer enjoy pleasure or avoid suffering.

Likewise, contemporary philosophy stands before death with folded hands, like Niobe—petrified with grief. If one reasons correctly, one arrives at the certainty that there is no death for the soul and that, in the life to come, a just God metes out a deserved reward or punishment to each person. If, however, one follows erroneous paths, one might comfort the dying with the hope that they will soon dissolve into atoms and cease to exist—or speak to them of merging with the Absolute or of the transmigration of souls; yet deep down, man senses that he is not nothingness and that mere human fancies do not suffice. Thus, as he lay dying, Herder cried out: “Give me great thoughts”—for philosophy could not provide them (25); and another philosopher, Justus Lipsius, prayed thus in his agony: “God, grant me Christian patience”—for Stoicism, which he had admired throughout his life... ...nothing could help him in the face of death (26).

Only the Catholic religion offers both great thoughts and great aids. It is this religion that teaches man how to die—that is, to detach his heart from the fleeting goods of this earth, so that the moment of parting might not be too painful for him; Yet when that moment draws near, religion illuminates the realm of death with the lamp of faith and places the torch of hope before the gates of eternity. On the one hand, it awakens contrition for the errors of one’s life; on the other, it points to God’s mercy, the Savior’s Cross, the protection of the Mother of God, and the opening gates of heaven. Moreover, it brings the Giver of Mercy—Jesus Christ—to the dying person; through the lips of the priest, He proclaims forgiveness and then enters the heart as aid, as comfort, and as a pledge of the resurrection.

Within this religion, death loses its terror—indeed, it becomes welcome and desirable; and it is no wonder that Saint Ignatius, the bishop, rejoices at the very thought of wild beasts’ fangs grinding him like wheat; — that martyrs go to their deaths as if to a wedding feast, while Christians gather at their tombs in the catacombs for the Holy Sacrifice; — that Saint Jerome calls death his sister and dearest companion; — that Saint John Fisher, executed by order of the cruel tyrant Henry VIII, sings the *Te Deum* upon the scaffold; — that the learned and pious Suarez, as he dies, exclaims: “I did not know that death was so sweet”; — that the people of Podlasie calmly bare their chests to deadly spear-points and perish with a holy song upon their lips.

Even those of other faiths acknowledge this. Consider Melanchthon: upon learning that his own mother wished to confess to a Catholic priest before she died, he had one summoned to her; and when surprise was expressed at this, he remarked: “It is better to live in Protestantism, but it is better to die in the Catholic Church.” Indeed, many who had abandoned the Catholic faith regretted doing so before they died. For instance, it is said that Henry VIII, gazing with dying eyes at those surrounding his bed, cried out: “Friends, we have lost everything... We have lost the kingdom, fame, conscience, and heaven.” Similarly, his daughter, Queen Elizabeth — consumed by deep sorrow before her passing—uttered anguished groans: “Oh, wretched me! Woe is me.” Luther, too, is said to have regretted before his death that he had risen up against... ...to the Church, and the final months of his life were poisoned by bitterness (27). How differently his contemporary, St. Ignatius of Loyola, died!

Footnotes:

19. According to Plato, human souls existed prior to their arrival in this world, and their number remains constant (pre-existence). It was only as a punishment that they were cast into these bodies—sources of desire and sin; yet the precise nature of this punishment—whether it was for failing to properly comprehend the Divinity and the eternal Ideas, or for choosing an unfortunate lot in life—is difficult to determine, as Plato presents this fall differently in two separate passages.

20. Natural History II, 7.

21. The number of suicides in cities is multiplying year by year, a consequence of the decline of faith.

22. Count Montalembert put it beautifully: “Which of the systems opposed to Christianity has ever comforted a sorrowing soul or filled the void in a bereaved heart? Christianity alone promised to bring solace to the unfortunate—and it kept its word. Therefore, before anyone seeks to replace Christianity, let them first banish suffering from the earth” (Vie de S. Elisabeth). Similarly, Rousseau expressed indignation at those who would deprive the afflicted of their last comfort and the powerful and wealthy of their only restraint (Emile IV). Even Victor Hugo—who could hardly be suspected of “bigotry”—did not hesitate to declare in the French Senate in 1850: “How our sufferings diminish when we place them alongside a hope that knows no end.”

23. See also the same author’s *Outline of the History of Mercy in the Catholic Church*.

24. Plato boldly proclaims the immortality of the soul—so much so that he might be called the apostle of this doctrine among the pagans—yet he holds peculiar notions regarding the state after death; this stems from his adoption of folk myths concerning the Acherusian Lake and the doctrine of metempsychosis, which appears to have traveled from India to Egypt and thence, through Pherecydes, found its way into Greek philosophy.

25. Balmes beautifully observed that religious doubt can satisfy only the person basking in earthly happiness, full of health and vitality. Yet, let the signs of death—or illness—appear, and skepticism instantly vanishes; that false sense of security transforms into a cruel uncertainty, fraught with remorse, torment, and fear. (From *Letters to a Skeptic*, translated from the Spanish). Count Leo Tolstoy expresses a similar view regarding unbelievers: “These people cannot deceive me, for I know all too well that they do not themselves believe what they say—that they merely avert their eyes from death, yet tremble when it arrives; that they are terrified before God—that God whose name they dare not even utter to themselves.”

26. The renowned naturalist Du Bois-Reymond rightly took issue with materialists who sought to replace religious solace with poetry and music, remarking that such a proposal—if made in a room full of women suffering from cancer—would be both cruel and absurd. In recent times, a movement known as “euthanasia” has been gaining ground among German physicians, advocating that doctors be granted the right to shorten the lives of terminally ill patients. This ancient idea is also championed by the leading monist, Dr. Ostwald.

27. In pursuit of the truth. Serya III, Letter XI.

This is what the Catholic religion offers the human heart.

IX. How, then, can one not be outraged that modern materialism—followed closely by liberalism and socialism—urges people to abandon this religion? And this appeal is directed not only at the wealthy and the happy—though even they are wretched without it—but also at those who moisten their bread with tears, or who, like Lazaruses, lie upon dungheaps, tormented by hunger, burning with fever, and wracked by despair. Reviving the principles of Epicurus, it calls upon everyone: “Enjoy earthly goods, for here lies your heaven, and with death, everything ends—*post mortem nulla voluptas*. Walk in garlands of roses before they wither. Drink from the cup of pleasure and intoxicate yourselves, for the feast is short-lived” (28). Many heed this voice and strive with all their might to amass wealth and indulge in pleasure. They disregard the loss of peace of conscience, of eternity, and of God; yet, even at this price, they find no happiness, and they die regretting that they ever lived.

Yet, because the banquet table is too small, the provisions too meager, and the guests too numerous, materialism compels modern progress to strive for the multiplication of wealth and the means of indulgence. It is a futile endeavor—misery does not vanish; on the contrary, pauperism grows, and from it emerges a terrifying dragon—socialism, followed by communism—ready to wipe out some of the guests so that others might find a place at the table and, if only for a moment, drink from the cup of pleasure. Such is the happiness humanity attains when it turns away from God!

If you wish, dear reader, to find true happiness, love the Lord God with all your heart, and in God, love all that is worthy of love; if you wish to find true comfort, hasten to Him who said: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28); and again: “My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you” (John 14:27).

Footnotes:

28. According to the Epicureans, the highest human good consists in being as free from pain as possible and attaining the greatest possible sum of enjoyment. The 18th-century Epicurean La Mettrie went even further, asserting that “the pleasures of love—experienced with that pure sensibility which accompanies even the beasts—are our true and only good” (*Discours sur la vie heureuse*). Similarly, in the 19th century, Feuerbach stated: “Man is what he eats.”

I. Man’s task is not only to know the truth but also to do good; for this, he requires free will, a law, a model, assistance, and encouragement. All of these are found in the Catholic religion. The truth that man possesses free will is as old as the conscience of humanity; yet, certain philosophical schools have denied this truth. Pantheists, in particular—proceeding from the principle that everything evolves from the Absolute—have subjected man and his actions to iron necessity. Materialists, meanwhile, turned man into a soulless machine, labeling thought a mere secretion or phosphorescence of the brain, and condemned him to blind obedience to the impulses of nature; they abolished the distinction between good and evil. Materialism was followed by monism, positivism, and so-called determinism—a doctrine asserting that man must yield to the strongest motives and, consequently, give way to his passions—that is, act according to the dictates of that dark natural impulse which Hartmann termed “the Unconscious.” Similarly, certain Christian sects degraded free will to the status of a beast of burden, driven blindly this way or that depending on whether it was guided by God or Satan; such was the view held by Luther (1), who erroneously assumed that original sin had utterly corrupted human nature—thereby destroying free will—whereas... The Jansenists likened the human will to a balance scale, rising toward the good or sinking toward evil depending on whether the love of God or concupiscence was stronger; in other words, they maintained that man is free from external compulsion but not from internal necessity. There also arose visionaries known as Quietists, who based all morality on a false mysticism, claiming that if a person is spiritually united with God, then actions become superfluous, and even the struggle against sensuality is unnecessary. At the opposite pole stand those who maintain that man is an absolute and independent master, and that every law—whether Divine or human—is an unjust restriction of his freedom. In contrast, the teaching of the Catholic Church is clear and alone true: that God created man free and gave him a commandment to test his obedience; that man, by abusing his freedom, transgressed God’s commandment and through this sin forfeited supernatural gifts for himself and his descendants; and that this sin also brought about a darkening of the intellect and a weakening of the will, yet did not destroy the will’s freedom or human nature itself (2).

II. We shall demonstrate elsewhere—when discussing the spirituality of the soul—that the human will is free from external coercion and internal necessity; there, too, we shall show what a great blessing it is for man that God has endowed him with free will (3). Here, it suffices to appeal to the pronouncements of Holy Scripture (4), the rulings of the Church (5), the views of humanity’s greatest thinkers, the universal experience of the ages, individual consciousness, the sense of responsibility, the voice of conscience, and the existence of duties, rights, rewards, and punishments.

Against this evidence, materialism cites the irresistible force of passion, the constant statistics of suicide and crime (6), known hypnotic phenomena, and so forth; yet these are but light chaff, scattered by the slightest breeze. In contrast, the Catholic religion has from the beginning stood in defense of free will and has always demanded good deeds from man, as well as contrition and atonement for evil deeds; thereby, it has preserved human dignity—the fundamental basis of morality and a necessary condition for progress (7). Neither the so-called determinism of Spinoza and others—which rejects free will—nor the so-called “positive” or “progressive” criminology of the Italian Cesare Lombroso and his school—which views crimes as natural and inevitable phenomena caused by physical, psychological, and social influences, as well as by atavism and the law of evolution—can stand up against this religion. (8).

For free will to choose between good and evil, it requires a clear and constant standard by which to distinguish the two. But what is this standard to be? If we consult reason, it tells us that there exists a natural law—eternal, immutable, and universal—authored by God and binding upon all humanity; that while man is an absolutely independent being, he possesses not only rights but also duties—duties he must fulfill lest he forfeit his own happiness and disrupt the moral order; that there is an essential distinction between good and evil, between virtue and vice—a distinction independent of human will; and that within man there resides a conscience—acting as the guardian of a higher law and the judge of human actions, or in other words, as practical reason applying divine or human laws to... ...of individual acts and judging them according to the law—that, ultimately, man’s destiny is to love the good and, through the practice of virtue, to strive to attain the highest good, which is God.

Footnotes:

1. Luther wrote a work along these lines titled *De servo arbitrio*.

2. See: the same author’s *Mysteries of the Catholic Religion*. Chapter VII: “On Original Sin”.

3. It is worth quoting the words of the deist Jean-Jacques Rousseau here: “To murmur against God because He created man free is tantamount to murmuring that man received from Him a sublime nature—one that allows human actions to possess a moral worth that ennobles them, and grants man the right to become a virtuous being. No, great God; as for me, I shall never complain that You created me in Your own image and likeness, that You made me free, and that You gave me the capacity to become—like You—good and happy.” (Cf. *In Pursuit of Truth*, Series II, Letter VI).

4. A classic example is the text from the Book of Genesis: “Its desire [that is, of sin] shall be for you, and you shall rule over it” (Gen. 4:7). — “Before man lie life and death, good and evil; whichever he chooses shall be given to him” (Sir. 15:18).

5. The Council of Trent condemned the views of the pseudo-reformers, and Popes Innocent X and Alexander VII condemned the propositions of Jansenius that undermined human free will.

6. The number of crimes varies by country and province, influenced by various external and internal factors.

7. Read: ‎Alb. ‎Stoki: ‎Das‎ ‎Christenthum‎ und‎ ‎die‎ ‎grossen‎ ‎Fragcnder‎ ‎Gegenwart‎ ‎I.‎ ‎B.‎ ‎Erste‎ ‎Studie‎ ‎C.‎ ‎Mainz‎ ‎1879.

8. Ferri was the first to develop this theory in the work *La teorica dell’imputabilità*.

These are the principles of sound ethics at which philosophy can and should arrive through independent inquiry (9). Yet the history of philosophy bears witness to the fact that, in this regard too, the human spirit has gone grievously astray—not only in ancient times but in more recent eras as well. Plato came closest to the truth; he maintained the harmony between morality and religion, asserting that human happiness depends on likeness to God, that virtue is the path to this likeness, and that immortality is the reward for virtue. Yet this same “divine” Plato, while sketching the ideal republic, sanctioned the killing of infirm children and the sharing of wives, and granted masters the power of life and death over their slaves. Other philosophers, too, failed to avoid grave errors; Seneca, for instance, condoned suicide and debauchery performed in honor of the gods, while Epictetus permitted sexual immorality.

Worse still, some philosophers undermined rather than built the edifice of morality; for Theodore of Cyrene grounded human virtue and happiness in egoism; Aristippus in the harmonious satisfaction of all inclinations and the prolongation of pleasures; Epicurus in *ataraxia*—that is, the satisfaction of desires; Aristotle in a life free from care and the fulfillment of civic duties; the Stoics in “divine apathy”—meaning a disdain for suffering and, in dire circumstances, courageous suicide; Lucian in the enjoyment of sensual pleasures; the Neoplatonists in ecstasy, and so forth.

It was only the Christian religion that brought humanity an ethic perfect in every respect (10) and built a moral order upon strong foundations, teaching that natural law is a reflection of Divine Reason and an emanation of the Divine Will—that God Himself inscribed it upon the tablets of human hearts (11)—that He proclaimed this law to the people of Israel in the Decalogue—and that, finally, in the fullness of time, the Supreme Lawgiver Himself came to supplement, perfect, and strengthen this law, and to promulgate it to the world through the voice of the Church. According to the principles of this religion, God is the source, the model, and the goal of morality, while the Church is the guardian, as well as the interpreter and herald, of the law of Christ (12)—that law unspeakably holy and sublime, yet accessible even to the simple—that law immutable, yet... ...applied to all nations and ages—that supernatural law which, far from destroying human nature, heals its every weakness and sanctifies every noble sentiment—that law whose first precept reads: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37, 39).

The Church also proclaimed this law to the world; through it—and with the aid of divine grace and its own labors—it regenerated fallen humanity; it ordered the duties of individuals, family life, and social relations in accordance with it; it based the law of nations upon it; and it imbued civil law, state institutions, and philosophical ethics with its influence (13); in short, it created an enduring moral order closely bound to religion (14). Furthermore, the Church deserves credit for having always defended this order—both against despotic rulers who often sought to substitute their own will for divine law, and against certain sects that preached either a false rigorism and pseudo-spiritualism (for example, the Montanists, Donatists, Waldensians, Hussites, etc.) or antinomianism—that is, the abolition of the law and the unbridled license of morals (the Gnostics, Dulcinians, Adamites, etc.).

Footnotes:

9. Cicero and Seneca discourse beautifully on natural law. The latter explicitly states that God Himself inscribed this law upon human hearts so that, guided by it, people might—through their own free actions—strive for what is good and just (Ep. 65 ad Lucilium).

10. In his *History of Civilization*, Buckle claims that the Christian religion introduced nothing new in terms of ethics; yet history itself bears witness to the contrary.

11. Saint Paul’s Letter to the Romans 2:15.

12. According to Hutcheson and certain other writers on morality, judgments are made by a “moral sense” that distinguishes between good and evil, much as other human senses see, hear, and feel (sensism). Others—Herbart among them—attributed to man a certain “moral taste.”

13. Rousseau himself acknowledged this: “I do not know why the noble ethics found in our writings are attributed to the progress of philosophy. These ethics, derived from the Gospel, were Christian before they became philosophical” (Lettres de la Montagne).

14. Rousseau himself declared that religion ought to be the foundation of morality: “I do not comprehend how one can be virtuous without religion. I long held to that deceptive opinion, but I abandoned it as erroneous” (*Lettres sur les spectacles*). And again: “There are those who would wish to base virtue on reason alone, yet I must confess that I find no strong foundation for morality elsewhere than in religion” (*Émile* III). “The substance of all ethics is contained in the Gospel” (*Émile* IV). Napoleon I expressed the same sentiment in a speech to the parish priests of Milan (June 5, 1805): “No society can endure without morality, and morality cannot be sound where there is no religion.”

IV. Humanity was governed by Christian law for over a dozen centuries; it was only the Reformation that attempted to strip the Church of its role as guardian and teacher of the law of Christ. The naturalism born of that movement drives a wedge between morality and religion, championing instead an “autonomous” morality—one liberated from religious influence—or, to speak frankly, an atheistic and immoral morality (15). Anti-Christian philosophy aids this endeavor by reviving old errors and introducing new ones. Indeed, following in the footsteps of figures such as Aristippus, Theodorus of Cyrene, Epicurus, Zeno, and Aristotle, philosophers of the last three centuries—hostile to Christianity—seek the principles and models of morality outside of God. They propose various alternatives: egoism, as advocated by Spinoza and Hobbes; or the harmony between selfish and social inclinations—that is, inner contentment — as... Shaftesbury — it is the enjoyment of sensual pleasures (hedonism), like La Mettrie, Helvétius, and other materialists of the 18th and 19th centuries — it is the desire for happiness, like Feuerbach and others — it is conformity with nature, and especially with the primordial state of humanity, like Rousseau — it is the good of the whole (utilitarianism), like Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Comte, and others — it is the benefit of the lower classes, like St. Saint-Simon and the socialist school represent practical reason—the categorical imperative, in the manner of Kant; egoism and altruism, as seen in Littré and Herbert Spencer; human law as the expression of the people’s will, akin to the views of liberals; and the cult of man—that “god of the earth”—as envisioned by Nietzsche. There even appeared a figure like Hartmann who, following Schopenhauer, revived the pessimism of Hegesias and advocated Indian nirvana—that is, “dissolution into the unconscious”—as the ideal.

These theories, destructive to morality, find many adherents today. Some retain only certain ethical principles from Christianity—derived solely from human reason—while rejecting dogmas as “irrational and useless.” Yet this theory is absurd and atheistic, for it posits a law without a lawgiver, severs the bond between man and God, and disregards the first and most important duty—that of honoring God (16)—while making man both the legislator and the executor of the law, effectively placing him in God’s stead. Furthermore, a “liberated” morality—that is, one severed from its natural foundation, religion—will always be mutable and fragile, as it depends on individual human views and lacks higher sanction; moreover, it is usually egoistic and illusory, for it does not... ...is guided by higher motives; and Bossuet rightly said that whoever does not love God loves only himself, no matter what else he may claim or promise (17). Even the sages of antiquity acknowledged that the emergence of morality without religion could not be explained, and they regarded the separation of ethics and religion as the ruin of morality (18). We also have the testimony of renowned 18th-century thinkers. Voltaire, for instance, posits the following on grounds of social utility: “God must exist; and if He did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Rousseau, meanwhile, fervently praises religion for enjoining justice, love, and other virtues, advocating that its principles be instilled in all citizens and that anyone opposing them be punished as an enemy of society. The experience of centuries has also confirmed this. Thus, Robespierre deemed it necessary to abolish the “Cult of Reason” and proclaim the existence of a Supreme Being (19). Similarly, in the nineteenth century, certain proponents of “emancipated morality” called for a retreat; and one of the most eminent economists, Le Play, saw the only salvation for society in the observance of the Decalogue—for the avoidance of moral evil, as well as the fulfillment of duties (especially those that are difficult and burdensome), is sincere and enduring only when the human will submits unconditionally to the absolute will of God.

Another thinker of more recent times, Professor Fr. A. Ehrhard, despite fervently desiring a reconciliation between Catholicism and modern culture, expresses the following view regarding this [secular] ethics: “Modern culture has thus far contributed very little to the elevation of moral life. So-called ethical societies have not fulfilled the hopes placed in them, and a secular ethics has not yet undergone a true trial by fire. To this day, it exists only in lifeless books. The essential foundation and driving force of moral life in our times is the moral power of Christianity (20).”

What harm, then, is inflicted upon society by all those who, in the name of progress, oppose Christian ethics and—as has happened in France—even banish religion from public schools (21); for this inevitably leads to ever-increasing demoralization.

Others claim that religion is necessary for the common people, to... ...teach morality through solemnity, while the educated person is supposed to seek the rule of life within their own reason. Yet this theory is fundamentally flawed and, in its consequences, disastrous. For it is not only the simpleton but also the sage who requires a law, a model, an incentive, and assistance to act rightly—and reason alone cannot provide all of this. Secondly, what then would religion be, if not a bridle for the unenlightened masses and a leash for children—something the enlightened and mature would have to be ashamed of? Finally, were the people themselves to realize that religion is being used to keep them in check, sooner or later they would reject it with revulsion in their quest for enlightenment and freedom; and if the people cease to believe in God, then woe betide society. A harbinger of this dismal... ...of the future can already be seen in the subversive beliefs of socialists, anarchists, and Bolsheviks.

Others not only divorce morality from religion but, furthermore, seek to replace religion and morality with culture, humanitarianism, and progress—in short, the ideas of the age (22). Such theories are propounded by materialists, positivists, and Freemasons (23), who base them on the materialist theory of evolution—that is, the continuous progress of humanity (24). Notably, the renowned French chemist and well-known atheist Berthelot devised a so-called “morality of science” (*la morale de la science*), effectively attempting to replace morality with knowledge; yet another scholar—though not from the Catholic camp (Henri Poincaré in his work *Dernières pensées*)—aptly countered that knowledge cannot replace morality, for it merely posits assertions and hypotheses without imposing any obligations.

Another... Cordaro—a freethinker and Freemason—proclaimed art as a substitute for ethics. While opening an art exhibition in Venice in 1910—for he was an Italian minister at the time—he explicitly predicted the end of religion and its replacement by art, such that in the future, churches would be transformed into academies of fine arts, and an artistic sensibility would take the place of Christian ethics (25).

Footnotes:

15. Reading: ‎E. ‎Caro ‎Problemes‎de‎morale‎sociale. ‎Paris‎ ‎1876.

16. Even the pagans themselves acknowledged this obligation; suffice it to cite the words of Cicero: “Est enim pietas justitia adversum deos” (”For piety is justice towards the gods”) (De nat. Deorum I. 41).

17. Proponents of “liberated” ethics accuse the Church of fostering selfishness by promising a reward in heaven; yet Catholic ethics wages a relentless war against selfishness, prioritizing higher motives—above all, a pure and sacrificial love for God and neighbor. Anyone who lives according to Christian ethics knows that hope and holy fear do not corrupt the human spirit.

18. Thucydides’ words are significant: “Laws alone cannot give birth to morality and virtue.” ‎(Bell.‎ ‎Pelop.‎ ‎3,‎ ‎45.

19. Father P. Schanz aptly stated that morality without religion is as impossible as thought without sensory impressions, or rational action without thought and a conscious purpose. Man’s eternal striving toward God has been and remains the principle and substance of the moral law (Christian Apologetics, Vols. 1, 2, 3). In recent times, some opponents of Christian ethics have extolled the code of Hammurabi—the Babylonian king who reigned around 2250 BC—yet this code, discovered in 1901 in ancient Susa, cannot compare to the Mosaic Pentateuch in terms of religion and morality.

20. Fr. Ehrhard, *Catholicism and Modern Culture* (trans. Fr. Z. Cieplucha), Poznań 1909, p. 53: Here, in our cities, ethical circles have sprung up—as well as societies for the promotion of sobriety (Eleuteria) and chastity—founded on a purely natural basis, without the aid of religion; yet they lead a sickly, wasting existence and eventually die out. In short, the “emancipated morality” so vigorously propagated by Aleksander Świętochowski and his followers has utterly failed among us.

21. The need to base morality on religion was also acknowledged by writers not suspected of “clericalism,” such as Taine, Barrès, Foerster, and others.

22. For instance, D. Strauss (*Der alte und neue Glaube*) advocated leading people on Sundays not to church, but to museums and concerts where Beethoven’s symphonies would be performed. It is significant that in Japan—where, following France’s example, lessons on morality had been introduced in place of religious instruction—the Minister of Education stated in a 1910 report that education devoid of religious morality had proven insufficient and that religious instruction needed to be introduced into schools.

23. Cf. the same author, *Masonry, etc.*, Chaps. III, IV.

24. Proponents of the materialist-evolutionary theory argue that there is no qualitative difference between animals and humans; consequently, they claim that primitive human morality differed little from that of animals, rising to the human and civilized level only over the course of long ages. However, scholars in the history of religion and the ethnology of morals (such as Alfred Le Roy, W. Schmidt, and V. Cathrein) have demonstrated that the most general principles of natural law—and the immediate conclusions derived from them—are known to all peoples, such that all distinguish good from evil and possess a very strong sense of justice; that even peoples at the lowest level of cultural development believe in the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul; that among these peoples, religion is inextricably linked to morality; and, finally, that... Since the time of Christ the Lord, humanity has advanced in terms of material culture but has steadily regressed in the realms of morality and religion. (Cf. *Ateneum Kapłańskie*, 1916, regarding the work of V. Cathrein, *Die Einheit des sittlichen Bewusstseins der Menschheit*, Freiburg 1914).

25. More recent German philosophers—such as E. Laas, Wilhelm Wundt, and Friedrich Paulsen—also sought to replace religion with culture.

A truly sad delusion; for can a culture devoid of God—or material progress alone—save humanity? Rather, it becomes a will-o’-the-wisp, leading mankind into the mire. Who was it that spearheaded the French Revolution and sent thousands to the guillotine? Was it the ignorant rabble? No—it was enlightened, progressive men: the likes of Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just, Marat, and their ilk. Who, during the Paris Commune, ordered the execution of hostages, the desecration of churches, and the burning of public buildings? Once again, the enlightened. In which social stratum do nihilism and anarchism find their most ardent adherents? Among the educated. Today, education casts its rays ever further, yet does morality grow alongside it or through it? Unfortunately, statistics show that it is precisely in cities that murders, fraud, suicides, brothels, and socialist riots are proliferating—necessitating the constant expansion of police forces and the construction of ever more prisons. And this is hardly surprising, for education divorced from religion leads to a disregard for Divine law and to progress in vice, thereby resulting in the destruction of morality. Polish positivists such as Aleksander Świętochowski, Augustyn Wróblewski, and others hold a different view; basing their ideas on materialist evolution, they regard ethics as a “codification of necessity” while simultaneously believing in a form of human progress wherein “morality and law will one day vanish, and there will be no need for duties or legal coercion, because morality will transform...” “...[it] becomes a natural function of the human will and becomes organic” (26). Yet the theory regarding the dominion of “necessary laws” over man—a theory already developed in the 17th century by the pantheist Baruch Spinoza—abolishes not only human free will but also the distinction between good and evil, while legitimizing immorality, violence, and egoism. The terrifying rise in crime and debauchery—along with the ever-increasing disappearance of the “altruism” promised by positivists—demonstrates how, among people devoid of Christian ethics, morality is transformed into a mere “natural function of the human will.” Furthermore, the horrific war of 1914–1919 and the Bolshevik rule in Russia bear witness to the depths of hatred, cruelty, and savagery to which humanity can descend when it turns away from the principles of justice and love for one’s neighbor proclaimed by Christ the Lord.

How mistaken, then, are those who see the only remedy for social ills and wounds in the advancement of culture—and particularly in the spread of education among the lower and hitherto neglected classes. While it is true that sound education leads to prosperity and even facilitates the work of fostering public morality, it cannot replace morality itself; for the mere fact that someone can read and write, or possesses a certain store of knowledge, does not imply that they have embraced ethical principles. Above all, therefore, these principles must be instilled in the human soul—a task that is impossible without religion.

Others in the camp of those opposed to Christian ethics reject individual morality and flatly deny man free will; yet, for the sake of the common good, they adopt a form of state-mandated morality defined by police regulations. What a dismal delusion this is! For what kind of morality is it that is overseen solely by the police and fears nothing but prison? After all, an act performed out of fear of punishment or public opinion cannot be called moral. Truly, where there is no fear of God, no respect for the law, no sense of duty—in short, no conscience—and where the entire state and social order rests solely on force, neither laws, nor bayonets, nor shackles will avail; for unbridled passions, like dogs unleashed, will sooner or later tear everything apart.

Others, discarding age-old moral principles, proclaim so-called ethical nihilism; one of the proponents of this school of thought, the well-known Friedrich Nietzsche, boldly declares that “there is no truth and everything is permitted.”

Finally, others seek to tear down not only religion and morality but also the state—along with the family and the entire social order—in order to erect, upon the ruins of the old order, a new world devoid of religion, marriage, and property, and to propagate atheism in schools (27). We have witnessed attempts to establish this new order in Paris in 1871, in Barcelona in 1909, in Lisbon in 1910, and in Russia in 1917 and the years that followed. Such is the ultimate result of severing religion from morality! May humanity come to its senses in time—before destructive forces gain the upper hand—and turn for salvation to the Catholic religion: the sole bulwark of moral order, the victorious vanquisher of vice, and the true teacher of virtue.

VIII. Yet this is not enough. It does not suffice for man merely to have a guide for his actions—that is, to know God’s law; he also needs an ideal to constantly light the way in his pursuit of virtue, and a model by which to shape his entire life. The Catholic religion meets this need; for it teaches that perfection consists in becoming like God (28). But can man, so benighted and weak, imitate the life of the Most Holy God, whom he cannot see? He can, for the Son of God—the most faithful image of the Father—assumed human nature and lived among men, working, suffering, and dying, in order to teach us how to live, work, suffer, and die. In Jesus Christ, the divine life was outwardly revealed—a life most holy, most perfect, and radiant with every virtue; a life not only of prayer but also of work, for He bestowed a heavenly nobility upon human labor, however lowly; He is the ideal and model for all, and perfection lies in the faithful imitation of His life.

Yet, lest man complain that these heights—reaching even to the Divinity—were too lofty for him, God gave him another ideal: one of pure humanity, albeit free from every blemish and replete with virtues of incomparable splendor. And this ideal is the Virgin Mother Mary, the most faithful image of Christ, the God-Man. Both ideals shine before humanity, pointing the way to God—the first like the sun, possessing its own light; the second like the moon, receiving light from the sun and shedding it upon the earth (29); therefore, whoever wishes to go to God must not close their eyes to the rays of this light—that is, they must contemplate the words and deeds of Christ the Lord, of His Most Holy Mother, and of His holy servants, and must hold fast in life to the one path, which is the Cross—that is, self-denial and sacrifice (30).

Yet man encounters significant obstacles on this path, for as a result of the Fall of our first parents—the consequences of which all humanity feels—his will is more inclined toward evil than toward good. The pagan poet Ovid laments this: “Aliudque cupido, mens aliud suadet. Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor” (I desire one thing, my mind suggests another. I see better things and approve of them, yet I follow the worse). (Metamorph. VII, 19). The Apostle likewise laments: “For the good that I will do, I do not do; but the evil I will not do, that I practice... I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.” (Romans 7:15 and 23). And it is precisely from this that the constant struggle arises between the lower and higher man, between flesh and spirit, ...between desires and reason, between sloth and duty, between self-love and the love of God.

The Catholic religion explains the cause of this struggle and the source of moral evil—that is, sin—by ​​teaching that the origin of this evil is not some “evil god,” as proponents of dualism claim (formerly the Manichaeans, and today still the adherents of the Avestan or Mazdaean religion); nor is moral evil a necessary evolution of human nature, as follows from systems of pantheism and materialism; rather, it stems from an abuse of the human will—that is, from disobedience to the will of God.

Religion bids man fight moral evil—that is, sin—throughout his entire life; yet where does he find help in this struggle? Perhaps in a sense of honor and personal dignity, or in the allure of virtue and the fear of human judgment? But can a fragile fence hold back a swollen river as it roars down from the mountains? Let each person answer for themselves whether such aid sufficed in moments of battle against raging passion. Is man, then, powerless against such mighty foes? How, then, can one escape the abyss of evil and ascend to the heights of virtue? “No one can help himself,” Seneca once said; “someone must extend a hand and pull him upward.” And who would do this, if not God Himself?

The Catholic religion teaches that God, in human form, descended to the very depths of human misery, planted His Cross there, drew humanity from the Cross toward Himself, and—through His death—secured supernatural aid for it; that aid is His grace. Specifically, through actual grace, God enlightens the mind so that it may recognize the truth, moves the heart to love the good, and strengthens the will to reject temptation and fulfill God’s law; meanwhile, through sanctifying grace, He justifies the soul and elevates it. ...raises it to the supernatural state, implants in it the seeds of virtue, and unites it with Himself, so that the soul becomes not only a temple of God but, what is more, a daughter of God and an heir to glory (31). Oh, how great is the goodness of God, and how exalted the dignity of man!

And what must be done to obtain this grace? Actual grace can be implored through prayer—which, according to Holy Scripture, pierces the heavens—whereas for sanctifying grace, one must go with the proper disposition to the seven fountains that Jesus Christ created from His own Blood: the Sacraments, guarded by the visible priesthood, with the Supreme Minister—Christ’s Vicar—at its head. Whoever does this finds superabundant help for every need of the soul and at every stage of life—help comparable... ...rightly to the fountain of living, ever-welling water; — indeed, one finds the very Giver of grace, who nourishes the soul—cleansed in the spring of penance—with His Body and refreshes it with His Blood, thus becoming not only its truth and way, but also its life. Thanks to these graces, which descend upon the soul like divine dew, a close bond arises between heaven and earth, and a spiritual world is formed—a hundredfold more magnificent than the visible one—a supernatural world that the eye of faith beholds and admires.

And this is no figment of an overheated imagination, but an undeniable reality that can be attested to by anyone who draws from these sources of grace with the proper disposition. What powerful aid sacramental confession offers the weak human being who seeks to break free from sin, avoid relapsing, and strive for perfection! How effective a means of sanctification is worthy and frequent Holy Communion, in which the soul unites so intimately with God! We can call upon millions of souls and nineteen centuries as witnesses to this.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the Catholic religion makes great demands on the will, for it lays upon it a yoke of labors and duties—often very arduous ones—and bids it constantly struggle against inner desires (32) and external temptations; it demands the severing of attachments—however cherished or strong—if they run counter to God’s will; it forbids sin, even if committing it could save one’s own life or the happiness of one’s family or country; it commands self-denial, humble confession, and love for one’s enemies; and it encourages acts of mortification, even regarding things otherwise permitted (33). Yet this very fact serves as proof that this religion comes from God. It is not, however, a cruel tyrant; On the contrary, it liberates the will from the most shameful shackles—those of passion and sin—and thereby also stands guard over public morality and social order.

This is what religion offers the human will; yet that is not all. It further provides the incentive for man to avail himself of the aid of grace and, with its help, to work, struggle, and suffer in a manner pleasing to God. At times, it speaks—as if with thunder—in the voice of holy fear, reminding us that God, the Creator and Lord of the universe, has revealed His will, to which every rational being must submit under pain of punishment. At other times, it plays the lute of hope, proclaiming the joyful tidings that, after a brief span of toil, struggle, and suffering, an eternity of happiness shall follow—where every holy thought, every good deed, and even a cup of water given to the poor shall receive its reward; where God shall immerse the soul—faithful and loving to the very end—in the ocean of His light and love, becoming Himself its exceeding great reward. It strikes the tenderest and strongest chord of the human heart, for it awakens love by teaching that God is Love, and by unfolding before the enraptured eye of the soul the magnificent vision of God’s works—works whose very essence is love. At the sight of this unfathomable love, and under the rays of divine grace, the human will is kindled with a holy fire; it feels such strength that it not only recoils from evil with loathing but yearns for noble deeds, strives for virtue, dares to make great sacrifices, and willingly endures grievous suffering—all to repay essential Love with love.

In this way, religion becomes the fertile parent of noble virtues and holy deeds. While indifference toward religion and turning away from God invariably make man a servant of base selfishness—and all too often a slave to shameful desires that lead him astray—true religiosity guards him against the frenzy of passion and blindness; it intensifies the light of reason, perfects natural qualities, elevates ordinary honesty and the sense of duty to a higher level, and impels him toward self-mastery and, not infrequently, self-sacrifice—in a word, it is both the mother and the mistress of holiness.

Examine the history of past centuries and the present day, and you will see what power lies within this religion. Through the work of the Church, it lifted humanity from the abyss of error, vice, and degradation; it introduced virtues previously unknown and covered the earth with works of faith and charity. Even today, it compels the priest to exhaust his strength for God and for souls; it tears the missionary away from his beloved homeland and sends him to savage peoples for a life of hardship—and often to a martyr’s death; it binds the religious sister to the bedside of the sick; it builds day-care centers, hospitals, and shelters—and it grants everyone great strength to fulfill their duties, however burdensome, and to endure suffering, however severe. It is in this school that great characters are forged and great Saints are formed; and indeed, everyone... A saint is a living monument to God’s grace and an eloquent witness to the divine nature of the Catholic religion (36).

Survey the history of the Church, and in every era you will encounter a vast array of men and women shining with every virtue, such that the Church has rightly been called the “Mother of Saints.” Thus, for instance, in the first six centuries—alongside the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles, and the Martyrs—the halo of sanctity was attained by Doctors of the Church such as Saints Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Hilary, and Peter Chrysologus; by bishops such as Martin, Paulinus, Patrick, Caesarius, and others; by hermits and monks such as Paul, Anthony, Pachomius, Benedict, Columbanus, and others; and by women such as Monica, Fabiola, Paula, Eustochium, Marcella, Melania, Nonna, Sylvia, and others. In the Middle Ages, every nation could boast of its own Saints; for example... Poland produced Saint Stanislaus, Hyacinth, Casimir, and John Cantius, as well as the Blessed Czesław, John of Dukla, Simon of Lipnica, Władysław of Gielniów, Bronisława, Salomea, and others. In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, there appeared such saints as Pius V, Cajetan, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Borgia, Stanislaus Kostka, Aloysius, John of God, Camillus de Lellis, Paschal, Didacus, Felix of Cantalice, Josaphat, Fidelis of Sigmaringen, Thomas of Villanova, Peter of Alcantara, Philip Neri, Joseph Calasanz, Francis de Sales, Francis Jerome, Peter Claver, John Francis Regis, Blessed Andrew Bobola, John Berchmans, Alphonsus Rodriguez, John de La Salle, Vincent de Paul, Joseph of Cupertino, Paul of the Cross, John de Rossi, Leonard of Port Maurice, Benedict Joseph Labre, Alphonsus Liguori, Clement Mary Hofbauer, and others, — as well as such women as Saint Angela Merici, Teresa, Mary Magdalene de’ Pazzi, Rose of Lima, Jane Frances de Chantal, Catherine de’ Ricci, Frances of the Five Wounds, Blessed Margaret Maria Alacoque and others. Can similar saints be found in other denominations?

It is true that some writers from the freethinking and Protestant camp (37) tried to lower the moral value of the Saints of the Catholic Church, presenting them either as eccentrics, useless to society, or as afflicted with diseases. nervous, or even mad; for example, St. Paul the Apostle as an epileptic, St. Francis of Assisi as a hysteric, St. Ignatius as an erotic, St. Aloysius as an idiot, St. Teresa as a hysteric (38), Blessed Margaret Mary as an idiot and visionary, Saint Simon Stylites, Saint Benedict Labbre as insane; but their allegations were refuted by Catholic authors as groundless and harmful. What is more, the more conscientious Protestant writers, such as Goethe, Italienische Reise, W. James (in Die religiose Erfahrung in ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit (from English by ...Wobberman) and others pay tribute to the virtues and merits of our Saints (39).

Footnotes:

26. Świętochowski’s *Sources of Ethics*. Page 293.

27. The German socialist leader Liebknecht (d. 1918) stated clearly in Halle in 1890: “We must mobilize the school against the Church, and the teacher against the parson (*gegen den Pfaffen*).”

28. “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

29. Wiser Protestants like Beecher-Stowe, Justyn Korner and others deplore the fact that Protestantism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is too little known and receives too little. ‎(Dr.‎Grupp‎Jenseitsreligion, 201‎).

30. “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” (Mark 8:34). “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6).

31. See also, by the same author: *Spiritual Life, or Christian Perfection* (Vol. I, Ch. V: On Grace), Przemyśl, 1913 (7th edition), and *Mysteries of the Catholic Religion*.

32. Materialistic ethics allows for the satisfaction of sensual desires, and its defenders argue that celibacy and chaste life are harmful to health, especially for men; meanwhile, doctors themselves lie to them they ask. “I have not seen a single disease - said the famous doctor and writer Dr. Montegazza - that was caused by cleanliness.” At the international medical conference held in Brussels in 1902 150 of the most famous doctors signed a declaration that a life that is pure and restrained from a medical and hygienic point of view is highly recommendable “(II) fant enseigner a la jeunesse masculine, ‎quenon‎ ‎seulement‎ ‎la‎ ‎chastete‎ ‎et‎ ‎la‎ ‎continence‎ ‎ne‎ ‎sont‎ ‎pas‎ ‎nmsibles‎ ‎maisencore‎ ‎que‎ ‎ces‎ ‎vertus‎ ‎sont‎ ‎des‎ ‎plus‎ ‎recommandables‎ ‎au‎ ‎point‎ ‎de‎ ‎vue purement, medical, et, hygienique. ‎Cf. ‎Charles ‎Vidal ‎Religion ‎et‎ ‎Medicine.‎ ‎Paris‎ 1910). Moreover, some Protestant writers, observing the alarming spread of immorality among the youth, have expressed a desire to introduce a safeguard similar to Catholic confession in order to save them.

33. Hence the principle: You will progress only to the extent that you do violence to yourself.

34. This is how the words of Saint Augustine are to be understood: *Regnat carnalis cupiditas, ubi non est Dei caritas* (Carnal desire reigns where there is no love of God) (Enchir. 117, al. 33).

35. Protestants themselves admit that their deaconesses cannot compare with Catholic nuns, either in terms of numbers or intrinsic worth. (Tägliche Rundschau, September 28, 1899).

36. Goethe himself acknowledged that wherever he encountered a deeply rooted religious life, he found characters free from selfishness. On the subject of Christian character, see the pastoral letter addressed to students by Józef Bilczewski, Archbishop of Lwów (Lwów, 1918).

37. For example, Dr. F. Morchen in the 1908 issue of the journal *Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie* (titled *Die Psychologie der Heiligkeit*).

38. The allegation that Saint Teresa was a hysteric was even raised by the Jesuit Wilhelm Hahn in a work published in Brussels in 1883 titled *Les Phénomènes hystériques et les révélations de Ste Thérèse*; however, this work was condemned by the Sacred Congregation of the Index in a decree dated December 1, 1885. What is certain is that Saint Teresa suffered from heart and nervous ailments for forty years, yet despite this, she attained a high degree of holiness, wrote outstanding works, and personally founded thirty-two Carmelite convents.

39. See Dr. Ignaz Familler Das Heiligenleben Inder Modernen Psychopathographie. Regensburg und Rom. ‎1915.

Moreover, as history attests, many Saints received extraordinary gifts from God—visions, revelations, stigmata, and miracles; in recent times, for instance, the holy virgin Gemma Galgani (born 1873, died 1903) (40). This serves as proof of the divine nature of the Catholic religion, for it is nowhere else but in the Church that we encounter such gifts—and undeniable ones at that (41).

And do not think that the Church acts credulously in this matter; on the contrary, it critically examines every fact and numbers no one among the Saints until a rigorous beatification and canonization process has verified that the individual practiced all virtues to a heroic degree and confirmed the holiness of their life through at least two absolutely certain miracles.

As for miracles, no other religion can point to even a single miracle that would withstand critical scrutiny; Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has a history of countless miracles—wrought by both its Divine Founder and its Saints—miracles of omnipotence and miracles of grace, such as the sudden conversion of the Apostle Paul or of Thaïs; miracles rigorously investigated and attested to by credible witnesses; miracles from the distant past, from more recent times, and from the present day. For who has not heard of the miraculous deeds of Blessed John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, who died in 1859? Or of the “miracle of St. Januarius,” which occurs annually before countless crowds in Naples—whereby congealed blood contained in a small vial liquefies when placed beside the reliquary containing the head of the holy martyr (42)—or of the apparitions and miracles wrought through the intercession of... ...of the Blessed Virgin in so many places, and especially near the Grotto of Massabielle in Lourdes. These latter miracles have been rigorously investigated by ecclesiastical authorities and attested to under oath by many physicians—both believers and non-believers alike; who, then, would dare deny facts so certain? (43).

As for the Saints, our own times—seemingly so barren—also produce Saints who will one day be raised to the altars (44); indeed, by the year 1913, eleven beatifications and one canonization had taken place involving individuals who lived in the 19th century—in addition to the 114 Martyrs from that same century who were beatified—while many causes for beatification (including that of Pope Pius IX) are currently underway.

Let no one say here that legends about the Saints—as products of folk poetry—do not merit full credence; for although legend may have attached itself to the history of this or that Saint from ages past—much as ivy clings to an ancient wall—seeds of truth lie at the heart of these legends, and, furthermore, there is a vast multitude of facts undeniably confirmed by historical evidence.

Finally, the Catholic Church can boast an innumerable host of martyrs who shed their blood—not in a frenzy of fanaticism or with weapons in hand, but by their own choice, out of love for God. Indeed, in the early centuries of the Church, up to eleven million Christians offered their lives in sacrifice to Christ; nor was there a lack of such “blood witnesses” in later times—notably in England during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, and in France during the Revolution. In Japan alone, hundreds of thousands perished during the 16th and 17th centuries; in Tonkin, around 1884, more than 24,090 were martyred (in addition to several bishops, 16 priests, and 270 religious sisters); we also read of martyrs in the Podlasie region in 1874 and 1875, and in China in 1900. ...in New Pomerania, Australia, in 1904 (45), and in German Africa in 1906; and every martyr is a living witness and an apostle of the Catholic religion (46).

Outside this religion, one may indeed find good deeds and glimmers of virtue, yet only in the Catholic Church is perfection possible—that is, a faithful likeness to Jesus Christ, insofar as this is attainable; only in its history does the heroism of virtue shine forth—namely, the heroism of love for God and neighbor, the heroism of the apostolate, the heroism of martyrdom, the heroism of virginity, the heroism of self-denial, the heroism of penance, the heroism of priestly, eremitic, and religious life, and the heroism of dedication and sacrifice (47).

Who does not see in this a clear proof of the Church’s divinity—that, as has been calculated, over ten million martyrs have shed their blood for its teaching, or that in every age millions of men and women vow voluntary virginity and keep that vow inviolate (48)? What other religion binds its clergy to celibacy and chastity and finds them obedient? Yet celibacy is not merely a law, but also the glory, the solace, and the strength of the Catholic priesthood.

Heroism of self-sacrifice is also found in the Catholic Church today, as evidenced by the work of religious orders and lay associations in the vast field of charity, or by the “prizes for virtue” awarded annually by the French Academy (49).

But someone might ask: If the Catholic religion is so perfect and effective, why are there so many wicked people among Catholics? It is because they do not live according to the precepts of their religion—which demands self-denial and sacrifice from everyone—but instead follow base passions and misguided self-love. Who, for instance, would not admit that the rise of vice in France must be attributed to the spread of unbelief and the resulting demoralization? If everyone lived as the religion commands, everyone would become a saint. If, then, you wish to know the efficacy of the Catholic religion, look to its obedient followers rather than to renegades and enemies—and consider, too, what the state of affairs would be if everyone were to become godless.

VIII. And this religion sanctifies not only individuals but also nations and society, provided it does not encounter insurmountable obstacles. Moreover, its blessed influence reaches even those who refuse to acknowledge its truth and law; and if Protestants adhere to higher ethical principles than their masters—if Jews do not always follow the perverse teachings of the Talmud—if those who do not believe in God recognize the need for some form of morality—if modern civilization, despite so many pernicious currents, still rests on a Christian foundation (50)—if there remains a significant store of goodness in the world—the credit for this belongs above all to the Catholic religion. It is also primarily to this religion that our nation owes whatever greatness and sanctity it possessed, as we shall see elsewhere.

How wretched, then, is that spirit of the age which deprives humanity of God—of His truth, law, grace, and reward—yet offers nothing in return but empty phrases and deceitful promises. How base is that progress which replaces faith in God with the deification of man; divine worship with the worship of matter; Christian virtues with outward decency; self-denial with the gratification of desires; purity of morals with licentiousness; sacrifice with selfishness; and the religion of the Cross with the apotheosis of the body and gold. It would be madness, therefore, to desire such progress—but who would desire it? For anyone possessed of reason and conscience—and who thus wishes well for himself, the nation, and society—can desire only progress in goodness.

Let this, then, be your motto for the future, dear reader. Faithful to God’s law always and everywhere, draw ever closer to the ideal of perfection—to Jesus Christ. Filled with love for Him, spread the kingdom of truth and virtue within yourself and around you, doing as much good as you can and striving with all your might to ensure that the Catholic religion wins over every will, and that Jesus Christ becomes the truth, the way, and the life for all humanity.

Footnotes:

40. The life of Gemma Galgani—along with her ecstasies, stigmata (sacred wounds), and other supernatural phenomena—was critically examined and documented by her confessor, Father Germano di San Stanislao, a holy and learned Passionist (d. 1909), in the work *Biografia della Serva di Dio Gemma Galgani, Vergine Lucchese* (1907). A Polish-language biography was published in Przemyśl by Fr. Prof. Wojciech Galant.

41. Read: ‎A.‎ ‎Poulain‎ ‎S.‎ ‎J.‎ ‎Des‎ ‎graces‎ ‎d’oraison.‎ (in German ‎Die Fiille‎ ‎der‎ ‎Gnaden).

42. See: by the same author, *Pastoral Medicine*, Ch. IV, VI.

43. Henryk Lasserre described some of these miracles—the number of which grows year by year—in his well-known work *Notre-Dame de Lourdes*; furthermore, another Frenchman named Artus pledged to pay 10 francs to anyone who could prove that even a single one of the cited miracles was not genuine, yet no one attempted to do so. See: Dr. Boissarie, *Lourdes depuis 1858 jusqu’à nos jours* and *Les grandes guérisons de Lourdes*. — see also Berlin, *Histoire critique des événements de Lourdes* (Lecoffre, 1908). The so-called “verification office” (*bureau de constatations*) recorded 4,270 cures between 1882 and 1912—cases recognized as miraculous following rigorous medical examination. Among these were 747 cases of tuberculosis affecting the bones, joints, and internal organs; 590 cases of pulmonary tuberculosis; 59 cases of ulcers and wounds; 25 cases of cancer; and so forth. Three thousand doctors from various countries confirmed the findings of Dr. Boissarie, the head of the office; nevertheless, denials continue to emerge from the anti-Catholic camp (recently from Bavaria), as that camp does not believe in God’s omnipotence or in miracles—and thus refuses to even entertain the possibility that miracles can occur... ...contradicts the testimonies, attributing these miracles either to suggestion and autosuggestion or to so-called psychotherapy.

44. About the Saints of the 19th century read: Konstantin Kampf S. I. Die Heiligkeit Der Kirche ‎im‎ ‎XIX‎ ‎Jahrhundert.‎ ‎Einsiedeln.

45. Among the nuns, Aniela Balko—a Pole originally from Zaleszczyki—suffered a martyr’s death here.

46. In the 19th century, the Paris Foreign Missions Seminary produced 77 martyr priests, the Society of Jesus 11, and the Congregation of the Mission (Lazarists) 7.

47. “Stoicism,” said Voltaire, “gave us only one Epictetus; Christian philosophy creates thousands of such Epictetuses who do not even suspect that they are such, and whose virtue is of a kind that they themselves do not know that what they are doing is virtue.” (Correspondance générale, Vol. 3).

48. St. John Chrysostom responded as early as the fourth century to the charge made by some economists that celibacy harms society: “It is not virginity that contributes to the diminishing of the human race, but sin” (De virgin. I. 18).

49. Cf. the same author’s *Outline of the History of Mercy in the Catholic Church*. Kraków, 1916.

50. Goethe himself confessed: “Let civilization advance ever further, let the natural sciences develop and deepen ever more, let the human spirit expand as it will; it will never surpass the sublimity and morality of Christianity as it shines and radiates in the Gospels” (Eckermann III, 171).

I. What thinking person—whether sage or simple soul—does not find these questions arising in life: Where did this world come from? — If it is from God, who is this God? — Who am I? — Where do I come from? — Why do I live here? — What will become of me after death? — What is the task of all humanity? — Why is there so much suffering in the world? — Where did moral evil come from, and what is the remedy for it?

What is to be done with these questions? Should we brush them aside like pestering mosquitoes and simply move on along life’s path? Yet such indifference would be both foolish and disastrous. The human spirit needs truth just as the body needs light, air, and nourishment; and rightly did the great sage Saint Augustine ask: “What else does the soul desire but truth?” It cannot live without it—especially without that truth which instructs it regarding the origin of all things and the purpose of life. To deny the spirit this truth is tantamount to locking it in a dark prison and condemning it to death by starvation—or, in a sense, renouncing reason itself. Moreover, the questions mentioned here penetrate deeply into every sphere and aspect of life—intellectual and moral, social and political—affecting individuals, families, and nations alike. To seek answers to them, therefore, is far from being indifferent to one’s own happiness or the fate of humanity.

II. Unfortunately, such indifference is by no means rare—especially today, when materialism has plunged the spirit into the mire. There are, indeed, people who reject any profound thought with revulsion, as if it were some terrifying specter; yet do they deserve the name of human beings? Are they not, rather—as Pascal put it—monsters? (1). If the human spirit does not wish to betray its own nature, it ought to strive to resolve great questions and investigate the origin of the world, the nature of God and His laws, the purpose and ultimate destiny of man, the source of evil, and the path to salvation; indeed, throughout the ages, it has attempted to reach the sanctuary of truth by its own efforts. But has it succeeded?

III. Let us first consult the peoples of antiquity—both the barbaric and the enlightened. Everywhere we encounter notions of God, the moral law, and the afterlife; everywhere, too, we come across religious rites (2). Yet how debased are these concepts and rituals, even among the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans—peoples who stood at a high level of civilization. How low man has fallen here—and the further he has strayed from the cradle of humanity, the deeper that fall!

All ancient peoples—with the exception of the Israelites, who also occasionally lapsed into idolatry—bowed down before pyres or stone statues, and even before trees and animals, acknowledging the forces of nature and human passions as their deities (3). Their religious worship was thoroughly sensual and superstitious, and at times cruel, for in many temples human blood and the virginity of maidens were offered up in sacrifice (4). Their moral code condoned vice and sanctified it through the example of the gods. Their social conditions were wretched, for the vast majority of people groaned under the yoke of terrible servitude.

In short, idolatry, ignorance, and depravity reigned throughout the ancient world; far from vanishing with the advance of culture, these evils grew to immense proportions—so much so that Ernest Renan, despite being a worshipper of progress and an enemy of Christianity, could not fathom how nations that were our masters in civilization, civic and political life, art, philosophy, and poetry could bow down to adulterous and drunken gods, stand on the same level as fetish-worshippers, and believe in fables so scandalous and absurd that even a child’s mind would have to reject them (5).

IV. Who was to bring religious truth to those nations? Or perhaps the philosophers? Indeed, we acknowledge that theirs was a great task; for it was their role, through independent inquiry, to arrive at a knowledge of those truths lying within the scope of reason—namely, the existence and nature of God, the immortality of the soul, and the fundamental principles of natural law—and subsequently to help purify traditions and uphold better religious concepts among peoples, such that ancient Greek philosophy was, in the words of Origen, a “preparation for Christianity.” Nor do we deny the philosophers certain merits or disparage their achievements in the realm of the spirit; yet, on the other hand, we boldly assert that philosophers could not become the guides and saviors of humanity.

V. For in their pursuit of truth, they themselves did not avoid going astray. Like ships setting sail without a helmsman and left at the mercy of the winds, they wandered the vast sea of ​​doubt—fortunate if they happened to reach a safe harbor, for most often they were wrecked upon the rocks of error (6). These errors were profound even among the most eminent masters (7)—let alone their disciples, whose philosophizing often amounted to little more than sophistic wordplay and universal skepticism (8); rightly, then, could Cicero declare: “There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not maintained it” (9).

Moreover, in their inquiries, they very rarely arrived at clear and certain convictions; most often, the result was a wavering between contradictory opinions, fostering a skeptical outlook. Indeed, Cicero himself admits that perhaps only a god could know which of the various views regarding the soul is true (10); and Xenophanes explicitly states that, concerning the gods and the world, no one has known or will know the truth with certainty (11). This explains why philosophical schools differed so greatly from one another.

Furthermore, philosophers sought the truth through the path of reasoning—a method impossible for the ordinary masses, who lack the capacity for such thought and are preoccupied with the struggle for their daily bread. Their theories were detached and accessible to only a few, such that wisdom was then, as it were, the monopoly of the powerful and the exclusive property of a privileged aristocracy of the spirit, whose motto was *Odi profanum vulgus* (I hate the unrefined rabble). “It is difficult to find the Father and Creator of all things,” Plato himself said, “and impossible to speak of Him to everyone” (12); and history records that Aristotle, upon his death in 322 BC, uttered these words: “I have lived in doubt and I die doubting. I know whether I go. O Supreme Being, have mercy on me.”

Footnotes

1. ‎Pascal‎ ‎Pensees.‎ ‎II.‎ ‎Art.‎ ‎II.

2. Seneca ‎Ep. ‎17 ‎says: ‎Omnibus ‎de‎ ‎diis‎ ‎opinio‎ ‎insita‎ est‎ nec‎ ‎ulla gens‎ ‎usquam‎ ‎esi‎ ‎adeo‎ ‎extra‎ ‎leges‎ ‎moresque‎ ‎projecta,‎ ut‎ ‎non‎ ‎ahquos Deos‎ ‎eredat“. (The opinion of the gods is innate in all, and no nation has ever been so far removed from its laws and customs that it does not inherit these gods.)

3. Pagan writers themselves—such as Diodorus (XX. 14), Plato (Rep. II), Plutarch (De Superstit. c. 13), Seneca, Juvenal, Pliny, Tacitus, and others—vividly depict the religious state of ancient peoples. Seneca himself laments that the place of God has been taken by an “ignobilis deorum turbo” (a base throng of gods). See: Döllinger, *Heidenthum und Judenthum*; K. Werner, *Die Religionen und Culte des vorchristl. Heidenthums* (1861); Guignaut, *Religions de l’antiquité*.

4. In honor of the god Moloch, mothers cast their own children into the fire burning on the altar, while in honor of Melitta or Aphrodite (Venus), virgins engaged in temple prostitution!

5. Etudes ‎d’hi ‎stands ‎re ‎religieuse ‎p. 7 9

6. Read: ‎Laforet,‎Histoire‎de‎la‎philosophie‎ ‎T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Al.‎ ‎Stockl Lehrbuch‎ ‎der‎ ‎Geschichte‎ ‎der‎ ‎Philosophie‎ ‎1870‎ ‎-‎ ‎Ed.‎ ‎Zeller‎ ‎Philosophie der‎ ‎Griechen.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Dóllinger‎ ‎Heidenthum‎ ‎and‎ ‎Judenthum.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Hettinger Apologie‎ ‎des‎ ‎Christ.‎ ‎B.‎ ‎/.‎ ‎Abth.‎ ‎2‎ ‎Efter‎ ‎Vortrag.‎ ‎—‎ ‎X.‎ ‎St.‎ ‎Pawlicki History of Greek philosophy.

7. Let us ask philosophers, for instance, about the essence of God, and the Ionian school answers us: God is a force acting within nature (Thales); God is air, endowed with life and reason (Diogenes of Apollonia)—or primordial fire and the soul of the world (Heraclitus of Ephesus). According to the Pythagorean school, God is primordial unity, the seat of the truth of light and goodness, and at the same time the soul of the world; and according to the Eleatic school, God is universal Being and the unity of all things (Xenophanes)—or the idea of ​​Being and an abstraction of thought (Parmenides);—according to the school of atomists, the gods are agglomerations of round and fiery atoms, possessing merely greater power than humans and gigantic stature (Democritus of Abdera)—beings clad in ethereal, transparent, and immaculate bodies, dwelling in tranquil seclusion, ...concerned only with Himself (Epicurus); — according to the Stoic school, God is a unity of force diffused throughout nature—fire, ether, fluid, and the soul of the universe. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle held better conceptions of God. For Socrates, for instance, the idea of ​​a single God—the Creator and Ruler of the universe—is not foreign; we also find in his teachings the concept of Providence, as well as exhortations to prayer and the veneration of the gods. Plato speaks explicitly of a Supreme God as a rational, free, and just spirit; it is a pity, however, that by deferring to popular beliefs, he derived from this Supreme Being a whole host of subordinate gods—such as the gods of the stars, the gods of the lower world, demons, and genii—and that he posited the existence of matter alongside God, independent of Him and co-eternal. The God of Aristotle of Stagira is likewise a spiritual being, one and indivisible... ...always active, yet only within Himself, for He shows no concern whatsoever for this world, which has existed for ages. Among Roman philosophers, Cicero, Seneca, and Epictetus held the purest conception of God, yet they advocated the worship of the gods of the people. Many lesser philosophers, on the other hand, fell into skepticism, and from skepticism into atheism.

8. In their inquiries into the origin of the world, philosophers failed to reach the truth that the Holy Scripture expressed in a few words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” According to them, the world is either God Himself—that is, a being at once thinking and material, as held by pantheists—or an aggregate of an infinite number of atoms in constant and eternal motion, as maintained by the atomists (Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus), or else it has existed alongside God from eternity, as the Peripatetics believed. Even the “divine” Plato accepted the eternity of matter as an established fact.

9. De‎ ‎divin.‎ ‎II.‎ ‎58

10. “Nature has endowed us with feeble sparks,” he says at the beginning of *Tusculan Disputations* I.11, “which we soon extinguish, corrupted by bad habits and opinions, so that no trace of that innate light remains visible anywhere.”

11. Sextus‎ ‎Emp.‎ ‎VIII.‎ ‎326‎‎

12. Timaeus p. 23.

Finally, philosophers lacked the courage to impose their religious, moral, and social systems—let alone upon all of humanity, but even upon a single city; indeed, they often conformed to prevailing opinions they themselves deemed erroneous, sanctioning the worship of popular gods and condoning heinous vices, while their own lives were not always worthy of sages—drawing, as Seneca attests, the public reproach: *Aliter vivis, aliter loqueris* (You live one way and speak another). How rare a philosopher is—laments Cicero—who is truly virtuous and whose spirit and life are governed by the dictates of reason. Some are so vain and boastful that it would be better if they knew nothing; others crave money or fame; many indulge in sensuality—such that their lives stand in contradiction to... ...in their own words. Voltaire aptly remarked that it had never happened that a philosopher succeeded in converting even the very street where he lived.

And could the whole and pure truth—capable of lifting humanity out of error and corruption—have possibly come from such people?

Later, in the Christian era, philosophy found abundant aid in Divine Revelation for the pursuit of truths lying within its own sphere; indeed, it would then soar on eagle’s wings to the source of all truth—to God. Yet, whenever it attempted to oppose that Revelation, it immediately plunged into the night of doubt and tumbled into the abyss of pantheism, materialism, or skepticism. Who is unaware of how the renowned philosophers of the 19th century—such as Kant, Hegel, Moleschott, Schopenhauer, Comte, Hartmann, Nietzsche, and others—went astray? Goethe rightly lamented that philosophers failed to resolve the problems concerning the nature of God, immortality, the essence of the soul, and its connection to the body (13); and Rousseau himself confessed that he sought counsel from philosophers but found none. ...found.

And what follows from this? Simply that the reason of even the keenest geniuses has been unable to provide a clear and certain answer to all the questions mentioned; and although, by its own power, it can enter the vestibule of the temple—that is, grasp truths belonging to so-called natural theology— yet, to reach the inner sanctuary of truth, it requires a guide to carry the torch before it, clear the path, and warn against straying from the way.

VI. Plato, the prince of ancient philosophers, himself acknowledged this need. “You must wait,” he has Socrates say to Alcibiades, “until someone instructs you on how you ought to conduct yourself toward gods and men” (2). On another occasion, he offers this advice: “From all that human reason has discovered, one must choose what is best and most certain, and—as if upon a more or less safe boat—venture out onto the stormy sea of ​​this life, unless one can find a completely reliable vessel for the journey—namely, Divine Revelation—to bring the voyage to a successful conclusion” (15). Such was the conviction of all antiquity; and no different voice is heard in the Christian world. Let us first listen to a believing philosopher. “It was necessary,” says Saint Thomas Aquinas, “for God to instruct man even regarding matters that he could fathom by his own reason; for true knowledge of God through rational inquiry is possible only for a few, after a long time, and with an admixture of error, whereas the entire salvation of humanity—which lies solely in God—depends on the possession of this truth” (16). Indeed, not only the limitations of reason but also the brevity of life, the press of external affairs, the demands of one’s station, ingrained prejudices, and constantly surging passions hinder man in his search for religious truth.

Let us now listen to the skeptical philosopher. “Our reason”—these are Bayle’s words—”is capable only of complicating everything and casting doubt upon it. No sooner has it built an edifice than it immediately points out the means to tear it down; it is a veritable Penelope, destroying by night the fabric woven during the day. Thus, the best use one can make of philosophy is to recognize that it is a path leading to error, and that one must seek another guide—namely, the light of revelation” (17).

Let us finally listen to the pantheist philosopher: “If one knows,” says Schelling, “what truths those are for which many trade away the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ, then one is involuntarily reminded of that king—of whom Sancho Panza tells—who sold his kingdom to buy a flock of geese” (18).

Let us also listen not to a philosopher, but to a man endowed with a remarkably keen mind—Napoleon I; here is what he said on the island of Saint Helena: “Let philosophers and metaphysicians argue as they please; religion is an indispensable need for mankind. Without religion, man wanders in darkness; only religion can offer him a sure and infallible light regarding his destiny.” Other thinkers have expressed the same sentiment, provided they wished to be sincere. Suffice it to cite the words of the pagan philosopher: “This alone I know, that I know nothing”; or Goethe’s well-known lament: “We constantly move amidst riddles; man is an obscure being—he knows little of the world, and least of all about himself.”

Is humanity, then, condemned to wander endlessly in darkness? No; for He who said, “Let there be light,” also bestowed upon humanity spiritual light—that is, Revelation—through which it comes to know God, the universe, and itself (19).

VII. The task of reason, then, is to seek revealed religion; yet we need not search for it, for it crosses our path of its own accord—full of majesty and grace, with a halo of holiness upon its brow, a cross in one hand and a torch in the other. “I come from God,” it says to each one, “and I bring you the truth, the way, and the life. And that you may not doubt this, behold my credentials, signed by the hand of God Himself and sealed with His seal. Examine their authenticity, and then heed the teaching I proclaim to you; for God Himself, in human form, brought it to earth and entrusted it to the Catholic Church—which He placed amidst humanity like the sun, so that through it all generations and ages might receive light and life; and so that...” ...so that this teaching might remain uncorrupted, He bestowed the gift of infallibility upon the teaching Church and its supreme Master.

Indeed, the Catholic religion proceeded from the lips of Incarnate Wisdom, Jesus Christ, and proclaims the truth to mankind—the whole truth: immutable, infallible, universal, and unique—such that it may rightly be called the “religion of truth” (20). Its divine origin is no mere figment of the imagination or myth, but a momentous historical fact attested to by a long line of divine and human witnesses—most notably the Church’s nineteen-century-long mission, rich in graces and miracles, as well as the faith of the millions who have borne witness to this religion through their lives and deaths.

The teaching proclaimed by the Church is neither a dead letter nor an abstract theory, but a living and life-giving word that embraces all the faculties of the human spirit and all the relationships between individuals and society. One might say that the Catholic religion is the axis around which the history of the world revolves, and that the origins, struggles, errors, virtues, and history of humanity find their explanation within it; for through its influence, it transformed the world and left upon it a mark that modern unbelief, despite immense efforts, cannot erase. It is the mother of modern civilization, the mistress of philosophy and law, the patroness of other sciences (21), the guardian of true progress, and the foundation of moral and social order.

VIII. Now, this religion—and this religion alone—gives man a sufficient answer to those great questions (22); it not only instructs him, through faith, in truths of the natural order that reason can discover through its own inquiry, but also expands the horizons of his mind, revealing truths of the purely supernatural order and leading him to the essential Truth—the source of all truth, to God, One in the Holy Trinity—so that the believing Christian becomes a wise man in the true sense of the word, and a child who knows the catechism attains a knowledge of divine things that the “divine” Plato never reached. “Read the little book called the catechism,” said the 19th-century philosopher Jouffroy (23), “and you will find in it the answer to all the questions raised...” ...through the philosophy of questioning—to all of them, without exception. Ask a Christian where the human race came from, and he knows; where it is heading, he knows; how it proceeds, he knows. Ask a small child—one who has never in his life pondered these questions—why he lives here on earth and what will become of him after death, and he will give you a wondrous and sublime answer; an answer he may not truly understand, yet one that nonetheless commands admiration. Ask how and why the world was created, why God placed animals and plants upon it, how the earth came to be populated—whether by a single family or by many—why people speak different languages, why they suffer and struggle against one another, and how it will all end: he... ...knows this. The origin of the world and the human race, the emergence of races, man’s destiny in this life and the next (24), as well as man’s relationship with God, his duties toward his fellow men, and his rights regarding other creatures—none of this is hidden from him; and when he comes of age, he will not struggle to find answers regarding natural law, state law, or the law of nations, for these flow clearly—and seemingly of their own accord—from Christianity.

Above all, the Catholic religion grants us such a sublime understanding of the essence and attributes of the Lord God—an understanding of which the keenest philosophers never even dreamed. Even the positivist A. Comte acknowledged this: “The Catechism is a modest masterpiece, containing the most perfect elements that monotheism has brought forth” (25). While ancient peoples envisioned their gods as rulers—often intent on harming humans and prone to base passions—and while Greek philosophy viewed God either as a thinker absorbed in himself, utterly unconcerned with the world, or else identified the world with God; while Muslims tremble before God as a Ruler dominating humanity through the terrifying force of *kismet*; and while Masons, following the deists, conceive of God as the “Great Architect”... ...of the world,” and while proponents of naturalism and monism turn nature into God, the Church teaches—based on Divine Revelation (26)—that God, One in the Trinity, self-existent and supremely perfect, is the Creator of the universe, which He called forth from nothingness by His omnipotence and sustains in being; and that toward mankind He is “Love” and the Father of mercy—for He so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son into the world in human flesh—and that this Incarnate Word is our Master, Priest, Savior, Redeemer, and King, our truth, our way, and our life, and that the salvation of all people is found only through Him and within His Church.

Footnotes

13. ‎Eckermanns‎ ‎Gespräche‎ ‎mit‎ ‎Goethe,‎ ‎II.‎ ‎148

14. II. Alcibiades.

15. Phaedo. p. 85

16. Summ.‎ ‎Theol.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎Art.‎ ‎I.

17. Dictionnaire ‎critique, ‎art. ‎Bunel.

18. Vorrede ‎zu ‎Steffens ‎nachgelassenen ‎Schriften.

19. The need for, possibility of, and criteria for divine revelation will be addressed in a separate volume of this work (Volume IV).

20. This is how Hegel called the Christian religion, Vorlesungen uber die Philosophie der Geschichte.

21. Du Bois-Reymond—a man certainly not suspected of religious bias—declared at a congress of natural scientists in Cologne: “Although it sounds like a paradox, modern science owes its origin to Christianity.” This is cited by Fr. Czesław Sokołowski in the work *The Anti-Modernist Oath* (Warsaw, 1916, p. 180).

22. Napoleon I himself acknowledged this in a speech delivered to parish priests in Milan on June 5, 1805: “I, too, am a philosopher; yet I recognize that, whatever the nature of society, a man cannot be upright and just unless he knows whence he comes and whither he is going. Reason alone cannot enlighten him as he needs to be enlightened. Without religion, man is bound to wander in darkness. Only the Catholic religion, with its infallible light, reveals to man his origin and his destiny.” — Fr. Tassoni, *La religion démontrée et défendue*, Vol. II, Chap. III, Paris, 1838; translated from the Italian.

23. *Mélanges philosophiques*. Author: Nicolas. *L’art de croire*, Book II, Chapter IV—a very good work, also translated into German under the title *Die Kunst des Glaubens* (2 vols., Regensburg, 1867).

24. Charles Stanton Devas rightly stated—in *The World’s Progress and the Church* (p. 23)—that theism (that is, belief in God), “divorced from Christianity, cannot bridge the chasm that has opened between the finite and the infinite, nor satisfy man’s desire for union with God.”

25. Cours ‎de philos posit. ‎V, 54 ‎leęon.

26. See Vol. II of this work, “On God”.

Regarding man and his destiny, this religion provides the only true and certain concepts, teaching that man possesses a spiritual, immortal soul created by God (27); that he came forth from the hands of the Creator in a state of righteousness—living in God’s grace and called to a supernatural life; that he lost these supernatural gifts—along with divine sonship and the right to eternal glory—through the sin of our first parents, yet regained them through Christ the Lord; and that his destiny is to unite with God on earth—through faith, hope, and charity, and with the aid of Christ’s truth and grace (28) found in the Catholic Church—and, as a reward for his virtues and good deeds, to receive eternal life after death. Conversely, this religion condemns pantheism, which... ...regards man as a particle and emanation of the Divinity; materialism,

which sees nothing in man but an animal; and naturalism, which—rejecting original sin and salvation through Christ—claims that man needs no supernatural aid because he is self-sufficient and ought to live according to the impulses of nature, without dreaming

of some heaven after death.

While the Catholic religion demands faith of man—that is, the acceptance of revealed truths as certain, based on the fact that God has revealed them and the infallible Church proposes them for belief—this does not disparage reason; for even in the natural order, human reason arrives at the knowledge of truth not only through inquiry but also through faith in the testimony of others. Experience confirms this, and profound thinkers attest to it. “We know most of the things of which we are absolutely certain through faith,” says Seneca (Ep. 9, 4). “Without faith, the study of history, nature, and medicine is impossible; even the relationship between parents and children is impossible,” rightly asserts Hugo Grotius (29).

How much more necessary, then, is faith in matters of religion; All that is required is for a person to know *why* they believe—that is, for the evidence upon which their belief rests to be certain—and, furthermore, for the content of that belief not to contradict logical principles (i.e., not to contain anything absurd or impossible). Now, regarding revealed truths, reason can demonstrate the foundations of faith: namely, the metaphysical truth that an all-knowing God exists—the Creator and Father of humanity—as well as the historical truth that the doctrine of faith originates from God; that the evidence supporting it (the fact of Divine Revelation) is certain; and that Jesus Christ appeared on earth as God-man and entrusted His teaching to the Church He founded. This is, strictly speaking, the subject matter of theology; yet knowledge of it is not required of everyone, for the vast majority of people... For believers, the authority of the Church takes the place of theological proofs. It must also be remembered here that the acknowledgment and acceptance of revealed truths—and of the very fact of revelation, which constitutes the primary act of faith—do not result from proofs grasped by reason; rather, they originate with God acting within the soul through grace, which both illuminates the intellect and inclines the will to submit.

And what, then, is the relationship between reason and revealed truths? Some of these truths belong also to the natural order, such that reason can grasp them not only through faith but also through independent inquiry; regarding these truths, religion supports reason in its investigative work, guards it against the errors that lie in wait during its journey through the realm of religious truth, serves as a signpost along the way, and imprints upon its intellectual achievements a mark of certainty—which, in the beautiful words of Balmes, is the “milk of reason.” It is hardly surprising, then, that the Catholic religion has provided such powerful aid to philosophy, and that under its protective wings, sages such as Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and others were nurtured. The famous Pico della Mirandola rightly said: “Philosophy seeks the truth, but religion...” “possesses” (30).

IX. Besides these truths, the Catholic religion also contains mysteries that even the keenest geniuses cannot discover or fathom (31); yet this does not disparage reason, for reason is finite while God is infinite; is it possible, then, for a small vessel to contain the boundless ocean? If man were to comprehend God, he would have to be God; and indeed, some philosophers make man into God, while others reduce him to the level of animals. The Catholic religion defends the truths of reason and human dignity, and thus condemns both pantheism and materialism; yet, at the same time, it safeguards reason against the pride that would destroy it, bidding it bow before the Supreme Truth and revealed truths, and demanding of it a faith that is humble yet rational. ...is an affront to reason?

Who would not laugh at a peasant who rejected the Copernican system simply because he could not verify it with his own eyes? It would be equally absurd to demand that religion contain no mysteries and that reason be capable of fathoming everything within it. Such a religion would bear the unmistakable mark of a human invention. “Now we see through a glass, darkly,” says the Apostle, who bids us bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; elsewhere, Holy Scripture warns against the arrogant probing of God’s mysteries. Stranger still, the freethinker Goethe himself admits: “The highest happiness for a thinking man is to explore what can be explored, and to reverently honor what cannot” (32). Yet human pride chafes at the fact that God demands faith; and ignorance of religion often leads man to reject what he does not understand. Indeed, many people... Educated people do not know religion sufficiently because they make no effort to learn it; it is no wonder, then, that some harbor erroneous notions about its truths and judge God according to their own standards. What madness it is to measure God by one’s own yardstick and seek to fathom the Unfathomable, when even the visible world holds so many mysteries hidden from human sight—so much so that, as a certain naturalist admitted, at the root of every branch of human inquiry we find the word *Ignorabimus* (33) inscribed: “we shall not know.”

The mysteries of the Catholic religion do not, however, contradict reason; for, as the Vatican Council declared, “the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has also endowed the human spirit with the light of reason; and God cannot contradict Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth” (34). While the opponents of religion have always attempted to demonstrate a contradiction between specific mysteries and reason or science, Catholic thinkers victoriously refute their specious arguments—arguments that stem either from flawed reasoning and scientific inquiry or from an inadequate understanding of religion. Moreover, the old proverb holds true here as well: *Plus negat asinus, quam probat philosophus* (an ass can deny more than a philosopher can prove). Let us simply recall the eighteenth century—how many missiles were then launched against this religion, supplied by philosophy, history, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines; or consider the war waged against religion in the nineteenth century by the leading lights of monism, evolutionism, Darwinism, and positivism, as well as by the worshippers of newer fetishes—especially that of irreligious progress. Yet, mere decades later, science itself shattered those arrows and covered those philosophers and scholars with ridicule (35). So it shall be in the future, too.

X. Thus, this religion does not fear objections, nor does it shrink from scrutiny, provided that reason approaches the task thoroughly and humbly—neither mistaking its own conjectures for indisputable certainties nor attempting to fathom what lies beyond comprehension. “Mysteries,” states the same Council, “by their very nature transcend human reason; even after revelation has been received and faith embraced, they remain veiled by faith and shrouded in a kind of darkness for as long as we ‘journey toward the Lord’ in this mortal life.” Perfect knowledge of God’s mysteries is the reward of faith in the blessed eternity where, as Holy Scripture says, we shall see the Lord God “face to face”—that is, without a veil; meanwhile, in this earthly life, faith demands submission and homage from reason... On the other hand, it grants him supernatural light—sufficient for his earthly pilgrimage—and serves as a kind of telescope through which he beholds new worlds of wondrous charm, invisible to the naked eye; at the same time, he discovers the marvelous harmony between revealed mysteries and his own needs (36).

Admittedly, some mysteries wear a deceptively simple guise, causing the arrogant to be repelled by that very simplicity; yet therein, too, God’s wisdom is revealed—for God willed to stoop to all, even the lowliest, so that He might be known by everyone, while simultaneously putting human pride to shame; ...which Christ the Lord expressed in these words: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent and have revealed them to little ones” (Matt. 11:25).

By acquainting man with the supernatural world, these mysteries also shed much light on the natural world, on philosophy, and on history. Thus, for example, the mystery of the Holy Trinity gives us a true and profound knowledge of the Divine Essence; the mystery of the creation of the world explains the origin of all things; the mystery of original sin reveals the source and psychological makeup of man; the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption provide a clear view of God’s plans and the destiny of humanity; the mystery of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar unveils the infinite love of the Lord God and the great dignity of man, and so forth.

Footnotes

27. Read Vol. III: “On the Soul”

28. Read Vol. VII: “Mysteries of the Catholic Religion”.

29. De‎ ‎verit.‎ ‎christ.‎ ‎n.‎ ‎29

30. Ep.‎ ‎ad‎ ‎Eng.‎Polit.

31. See Vol. VII of this work.

32. Spriiche‎ ‎in‎ ‎Prosa‎ ‎III.‎ ‎B.‎ ‎S.‎ ‎302

33. Edw. Suess, Inaugural Address, Vienna 1888, 44. The renowned Herbert Spencer likewise admitted: “In whatever direction we turn our inquiries, we everywhere encounter some insoluble riddle” (*First Principles*).

34. Sess.‎ III.‎ L. IV.‎ De‎ fide‎ et‎ ratione.

35. J.J. Rousseau vividly portrayed such philosophers—even though he belonged to their ranks: “Where is the philosopher who, for the sake of vain glory, would not be willing to deliberately deceive the human race? Where is the one who, deep in his heart, harbors any intention other than the desire to shine? Provided he can rise above the common herd and outshine his rivals, what does the rest matter to him? For him, the main thing is to think differently from others; among the godless, he would be a believer; in a land of believers, he is a godless man” (Emile, Vol. IV).

36. This matter is discussed in Volume VII, on the “Mysteries of the Catholic Religion.”

In short, the mysteries of religion are like mines of unfathomable depth—whose bottoms cannot be reached, yet into which one need only descend with the lamp of faith in hand to extract the priceless ore of wisdom; they are like suns of wondrous radiance—upon which our weak eyes cannot boldly gaze, yet whose rays illuminate both lofty peaks and lowly valleys, both the sage and the simple. Believe me, esteemed reader: for decades I have examined the truths of faith, and far from discovering anything within them contrary to reason, or anything harmful to man or society, I have found such light, such solace, and such aid that the cry of the great Apostle has burst forth from my own soul: “O the depth of the riches, of the wisdom and...” ...God’s message,” and I thanked God daily for the grace of the call to faith. Millions would say the same, and would willingly lay down their lives for this conviction, just as so many martyrs have done. I go even further and boldly declare: if anyone can prove that even a single dogma of the Catholic religion contradicts the principles of reason or brings ruin to humanity, then he would be free to reject all the dogmas as false; yet no one will ever succeed in doing so.

XI. Indeed, the Catholic religion appears to me like a magnificent queen making her triumphal procession across lands and centuries, shining with wondrous radiance and scattering her graces and gifts everywhere. Millions of believers walk before her—not merely simple folk, but geniuses who were well-versed in both Catholic dogmas and the objections of skeptics, yet lived according to the faith—such philosophers, for instance, as Saint Augustine, Boethius, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Suarez, Descartes, Balmes, and the like; and such scholars as Origen, Albert the Great, Copernicus, Baronius, Pascal, Galileo, Mai, Secchi, Chevreul, Cauchy, Quatrefages, Pasteur, Szujski, and... e.g. (37) — such orators and poets as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Bernard, Bossuet, Skarga, Ventura, Lacordaire, Count Montalembert, Dante, Tasso, Cervantes, Calderón, Mickiewicz, and... ...such kings as Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Charlemagne, Louis IX, Stephen Báthory, and so on; such heroes as Charles Martel, Godfrey of Bouillon, Tilly, Żółkiewski, Czarniecki, Sobieski, and so on; such masters as Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Murillo, Matejko, Beethoven, and so on; such benefactors of humanity as Saint Benedict, Saint John of God, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Saint Vincent de Paul, Don Bosco, and so many others. Millions will follow her, too; and although unbelief wages an ever-fiercer war against her, humanity will never cease to seek light, solace, healing, and strength in her.

XII. Moreover, even opponents contribute to the glory of religion. Some, overcome by the power of truth, finally lay down their arms and—at least in the face of death—bow before the majesty of the faith; of those bold spirits of the eighteenth century, the majority retracted their errors before dying—such as, for example, Montesquieu, Boulanger, Toussaint (38), Boulainvilliers, Condillac, Fontenelle, Buffon, d’Argens, Cabanis, Broussais, Maupertuis, Dumarsais, Damilaville, Thomas, La Harpe, Laplace, de Langle, Mercier, Soulavie, etc.

The 19th and 20th centuries also witnessed similar triumphs of the Catholic religion. A testament to its truth is the famous “God of War” and mighty ruler Napoleon I; though he neglected his religious duties during his life and oppressed Pope Pius VII and the Church while on the throne, he was no atheist. When he lay dying, he piously received the Holy Sacraments from the hands of Father Vignali and spoke thus to Count Montholon: “I am happy to have fulfilled my religious duty. I wish for you, General, that you might experience this same happiness at the hour of your death... I did not practice my religion while on the throne, for power intoxicates men, yet I always believed.” As his final moment approached (May 5, 1821), he ordered the Blessed Sacrament to be exposed in the adjoining room and called upon those present to pray. Even earlier, he had professed his belief in the divinity of Christ to Bertrand: “Bertrand, I am a good judge of character; Christ was not a man.”

Witnesses to the divine nature of the Catholic religion also included: the prominent diplomat Talleyrand—who, swept up in the whirlwind of the Revolution, went from being a bishop to an apostate, yet before his death apologized to the Church for the scandal he had caused (d. 1837); or the famous proponent of positivism Émile Littré—who through his writings undermined faith in God and taught humanity how to do without religion, yet died a believing Christian after receiving the Holy Sacraments (d. 1881); or the renowned historian Hippolyte Taine—who in his will requested a religious burial (d. 1893); or the distinguished social researcher Frédéric Le Play—who, through scientific analysis, moved from atheism to the truth (d. 1882); or the well-known Prime Minister Waldeck-Rousseau—who, while serving Freemasonry, greatly [affected] the Catholic Church... ...harmed France, yet died a Christian death and—to the great scandal of the sect—ordered a religious funeral for himself (d. 1905); or the Grand Master of English lodges, George Frederick Samuel, Lord Grey, Marquess of Ripon, who, intending to refute the Catholic religion, began to examine its dogmas but was struck by their truth, converted, and subsequently edified England and India with his devout life (d. 1909); or Krogh-Tonnigg (d. 1911), a professor at the University of Christiania and a Protestant pastor, who, while writing a work on Christian dogmatics, came to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church and became a Catholic; or the contemporary Danish poet Jørgensen, who in his youth embraced pantheism and pessimism, and—while searching in vain for happiness in “the gospel of modern masters”... ...sailed into the harbor of the true religion and, in 1896, having overcome great obstacles, transformed from an unbelieving Protestant into a believing Catholic—or, finally, the still-living Portuguese poet Gomez Leal, who was an open and fierce unbeliever but today staunchly defends the Catholic religion.

Nor can it go unmentioned that the President of the French Republic, Sadi Carnot—mortally wounded by the anarchist Caserio—reportedly received baptism at the hands of the Archbishop of Lyon before his death; that the “Red Prince” Jérôme Napoleon Bonaparte—a fierce enemy of the Church during his lifetime—admitted Bishop Mermillod to his bedside as he lay dying and, it seems, made his confession to him; that among the leading figures of the Italian Revolution, Count Cavour (d. 1861), King Victor Emmanuel II (d. 1878), and ministers Lanza (d. 1882) and Minghetti (d. 1886), among others, reconciled with the Church, at least outwardly; and that Victor Hugo himself—an avowed opponent of the Catholic religion—is said to have told the saintly Father Bosco two years before his death (d. 1885): “I am Victor Hugo, and I ask...” “...Father, for your friendship. I believe in the supernatural, I believe in God, and I expect that when I die, I will have a Catholic priest by my side to commend my soul to its Creator” (40); but this did not happen, because the Freemasons, who were guarding him closely, did not allow a priest to reach him (41).

True witnesses to the Catholic religion are those more recent Catholic writers in France—many of whom transformed from unbelievers or religious indifferentists into ardent apologists—such as Coppée, Bourget, Brunetière, Huysmans, Count Alfred de Mun, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, Melchior de Vogüé, d’Haussonville, Pierre Lasserre, Francis Jammes, René Bazin, Tavernier, Nourrisson, de Lapparent, Sully-Prudhomme, Laurent, Tailhade, Charles Guérin, Charles Morice, Professor Branly, Grasset (Professor of Medicine at Montpellier), the poet Mistral, the poet Paul Claudel, Copin-Albancelli (a converted Freemason), A. Retté (42), and others (43).

Finally, there are witnesses who are converts from Protestantism and Judaism (44); one of them—Dr. Albert von Ruville—upon returning to the Church, joyfully notes that the divine words of the Apocalypse have been fulfilled in him: “Behold, I make all things new.” He asserts that “to attain peace of soul, true happiness, and certainty of judgment amidst all life’s complexities, faith in dogmatic truths is essential, and that this faith inherently includes a striving for moral perfection—such that without it, true morality cannot be achieved” (*Zurück zur heiligen Kirche*, 1910, p. 11).

Others fight this religion to the bitter end, yet they also reach such a state of blindness that they defy common sense; to satisfy the hunger of the soul, they create their own religions—such as Spiritism or Freemasonry—or else they cast into the world ideas that are as absurd as they are monstrous: for instance, that God is evil, that man is an animal, that property is theft, that virtue and vice are empty names, and that the entire moral order is a delusion. Thus, Goethe’s words are proven true in their case: “Disbelief is the trait of feeble, narrow-minded, backward people who are self-absorbed” (45).

Others, having scorned religion, undermine the foundations of all truth within themselves and plunge into an abyss of doubt, such that they are finally compelled to declare, with Fichte: “I know of no being in general, nor of my own. There is no being. I myself know nothing and am nothing. There are only images... and I am one of them” (46). They seek to find truth and peace in atheism; yet Pierre Bayle rightly observed that atheism can never lead to certainty and ends only in doubt. When one of Voltaire’s friends once firmly declared to him, “I am convinced that hell does not exist,” Voltaire replied: “I envy you that, for I am still far from such certainty.”

For since the state of constant doubt—that is, skepticism—is unbearable to the human spirit, a cry of anguish for lost faith often escapes the breast of the doubter.

In the nineteenth century, there lived a philosopher named Théodore Jouffroy (d. 1842) who first tasted the sweetness of religion and felt indescribably happy. “The Christian religion,” he said of himself (47), “fully satisfied all the needs and anxieties of my soul; it answered the questions that alone seemed to me worthy of human reason’s inquiry, and I accepted those answers with faith; thanks to that faith, I clearly understood the present life, and even cast an undimmed gaze into the life beyond the grave. I was at peace regarding the path of life and its end; I understood life with its vicissitudes, and death, which unites them; I understood myself; I understood God’s purposes for me and loved Him for the goodness revealed in those purposes; I was happy in this.” “...with the happiness afforded by a living and robust faith in science—a science capable of resolving all the great questions that concern mankind.”

Yet later, he allowed doubt to enter his soul, and—by his own account (48)—the light within him was extinguished and happiness fled; that life, once so joyful and vibrant, became dark and dead as the grave. He himself came to resemble a man plunging into an abyss who clutches at weeds growing in the crevices, only to tumble downward along with them. From the heights of faith, the wretched man fell into the vortex of pantheism, cursing the “fatal thoughts” that had driven him there.

Another 19th-century philosopher, Abbé Félicité de Lamennais, vividly describes the melancholy state of a soul that thinks but believes in nothing: “When faith—which once lifted the soul to God and united it with Him—vanishes, terrible things occur within it. Dragged down by its own weight, the soul falls endlessly, carrying with it the light of reason—itself torn from its source—and clutches at whatever it encounters along the way, now with painful anxiety, now with a delight reminiscent of a madman’s laughter. Consumed by an insatiable thirst for life, it first grasps at matter—vainly attempting to animate, spiritualize, and deify it—only to then chase after hollow abstractions and the erroneous, formless delusions of its own imagination.

The remnants of love that remain within it...” ...remain; they are an animalistic mode rather than a noble sentiment. All his higher faculties and abilities are paralyzed, lying, as it were, in a deep slumber. The mysterious powers of the soul—which create, within and around us, a realm of morality and a spiritual order of the world, and which constitute the inner, true essence of man—vanish; meanwhile, man feels, with heart-rending anguish, that his better self is withering away. His soul hungers, yet he has no nourishment for it; what, then, is he to do? He kills the soul so that it may no longer hunger or feel that torment. He suffers because he has fallen too low. Let him fall deeper still, then—down to the level of the beast; let him cast off reason, thought, and feeling. Yet this is impossible for him! Man drags along with him into the darkest abyss... “...his human nature; severed from his center, he is like a ship bereft of rudder and oars, tossed about by ocean waves” (49),

Unfortunately, this same Lamennais endured the terrible torments that unbelief inflicts upon the soul. When his erroneous theories were condemned by Gregory XVI, instead of submitting to the judgment, he threw down the gauntlet to the Holy See; transforming from a defender of religion into its enemy—an apostate, and ultimately a pantheist.

Let everyone who believes, then, guard vigilantly against pride and intellectual arrogance; and let anyone who begins to doubt hasten to strengthen their faith through prayer, the reading of apologetic works, and a devout life.

Footnotes

37. Eminent thinkers—albeit Protestants—also paid homage to revealed religion: Bacon, Leibniz, Kepler, Euler, Newton, Herschel, Tycho Brahe, Cuvier, Linnaeus, Milton, Shakespeare, Faraday, Priestley, Lord Kelvin, von Baer, ​​Liebig, and so forth.

38. Toussaint, the author of the work *Des mœurs*, not only publicly recanted his errors but, before his death, addressed his son as follows: “My son, listen to the truths I now declare to you—albeit too late. Forget the teachings I unfortunately imparted to you; instead, kneel, join your prayers with those of the people surrounding my bedside, and vow to God that you will heed my final admonitions—and pray for my forgiveness.” (Tribault, *Mes souvenirs de vingt ans*)

39. Diderot himself wished to make his confession before dying but was not permitted to do so; the same course of action was taken with D’Alembert. It appears that similar measures were employed regarding Voltaire, who—according to the testimony of Tronchin—died in convulsions in 1778, crying out in despair: “God and men have abandoned me!” (Je suis abandonné de Dieu et des hommes). Abbé Gaultier managed to reach Voltaire but could not persuade him to confess. According to some writers, Rousseau took his own life (1778). (Cf. de Lamennais, *Essais sur l’indifférence en matière de religion*, Vol. I, p. 239; Rohrbacher, *Histoire universelle de l’Église catholique*, 1874 ed., Vol. XIII, Bk. 89, § V: “Philosophisme ou l’incrédulité moderne”.) — Hołzwarth, *Historia Powszechna* [Universal History], Vol. VII, p. 469.

40. Cf. *The Life of the Great Servant of God Fr. John Bosco* by Fr. Dr. J. Francesia (Polish translation, p. 322). During his first conversation with Fr. Bosco, Victor Hugo confessed that he believed in nothing.

41. Victor Hugo himself stated in the French Senate in 1850: “The greater a man becomes, the more strongly he should believe; the closer he draws to God, the better he should know Him” ​​(cf. Galerani, *Contravelleno religioso*). Regarding Charles Darwin, his son Francis recounts that Darwin acknowledged his belief in God in one of his letters.

42. A. Rette transformed from a skeptic and an adherent of anarchism into a devout, practicing Catholic. For a time, he even ministered to the sick at Lourdes, and in 1909, he entered a monastery in Belgium. He recounted the story of his soul in the work *Du diable à Dieu*.

43. The prominent tribune and Freemason Léon Gambetta did not convert; yet, as he lay dying from a wound inflicted by his mistress (d. 1882), he reportedly cried out in despair: “I can already feel hell in my entrails. What a terrible fate!” (Cf. X. Dębicki, *The End of the 19th Century: An Intellectual Perspective*, Warsaw 1895). If the authors known as “neo-Christians” (after 1890) failed to live up to the hopes placed in them, the reason was their refusal to accept the full Catholic truth and to submit unconditionally to the authority of the Church; the motives drawing them toward Catholicism—such as respect for old French traditions, the beauty of the liturgy, and a defense against socialism—were also weak.

44. Cf. Chapter II.

45. Zur Farbenlehre II.

46. Uber‎ ‎die‎ ‎Bestimmung‎ ‎des‎ ‎Menschen‎ ‎II.‎ ‎B.

47. De‎ I organization des sciences philosophiques. Reader Nicolas Uart de croire L. IV. ‎Chap.‎ ‎IV.

48. Read: ‎Ramiere‎ ‎Les ‎espreances‎ ‎de‎ ‎l‎ ‎Eglise‎ ‎p.‎ ‎677

49. Discussions‎ ‎critiques‎ ‎et‎ ‎pensees‎ ‎diverses‎ ‎sur‎ ‎la‎ ‎religion‎ ‎et‎ ‎la‎ philosophic‎ ‎p.‎ ‎22 ‎Read.‎ Hettinger‎ ‎Apol.‎ ‎des‎ ‎Christ.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎7‎ ‎Erst.‎ ‎Vortr.J.

I. According to calculations made by the Jesuit Crosi in the first decade of the 20th century, there are estimated to be 1,561 million people on Earth; among them are 617,912,918 Christians of various denominations—292,787,058 Catholics [specifically: 188,577,058 in Europe, 12,661,498 in Asia, 2,689,839 in Africa, 87,614,635 in the Americas, and 1,244,055 in Australia]—186,055,624 Protestants of various denominations—136,516,787 Orthodox Christians in Russia and the East—12,989,751 Jews—207,067,840 Muslims—220,100,000 adherents of Brahmanism—125,270,000 Buddhists—240,000,000 adherents of the religion of Confucius and ancestor worship—49,000,000 Taoists and Shintoists—adherents of... ...of fetishism and other pagan cults: 91,604,000; — adherents of unknown religions or those without religious affiliation: 7,313,280 (1).

It is a sorrowful fact that there remain so many idolaters who do not know the true God; thus, it is no wonder that the Catholic Church exerts all its strength to send ever more missionaries to them with the message of the Gospel, bearing the Cross of Christ even to the “Dark Continent” of Central Africa or to the remote islands of Australia. It is, moreover, the duty of its faithful children to support these endeavors through prayer and financial contributions.

In the nineteenth century, Protestants also entered the missionary field—a field hitherto cultivated exclusively by the sweat and blood of Catholic priests—and, availing themselves of the support of their respective great powers and of abundant material resources (2), they are engaging in increasingly vigorous activity (3).

Protestant propaganda—relying primarily on Bibles (4), schools, and money—is generally hostile to the Catholic Church and detrimental to the conversion of idolaters; for a Chinese, Japanese, or other pagan, witnessing such hatred and discord among the followers of Christ, is thereby only further confirmed in his own faith.

II. What was the indigenous population’s original religion? Was it polytheism in one form or another, or was it monotheism—that is, belief in a single God? This question engages both theologians and secular scholars dedicated to the fields of anthropology, ethnology, and the history of religions; yet their answers remain widely divergent.

Among scholars of modern times, there is no shortage of those who—accepting as dogma Darwin’s theory of transformism and evolution—boldly assert that man originated from an ape belonging to the anthropoid species; and that only over the course of a vast period—spanning even millions or hundreds of thousands of years—did he develop reason, invent speech, and advance in culture. As for religion, they claim he progressed from atheism to fetishism (5)—that is, to the rendering of divine worship to various individual material objects—or to other forms of idolatry which, refining themselves over the centuries, led successively to polytheism, Sabeism (or nature worship), dualism, henotheism (or belief in lesser deities headed by one supreme being), and finally to monotheism—that is, belief in one God (6). From this theory, opponents... From the Christian religion, they drew the conclusion that it, too, is merely a transitional form; consequently, the final religion of humanity will be monism—whether materialistic or idealistic—yet in either guise excluding the concept of a transcendent God; thus, humanity will ultimately arrive at atheism.

Footnotes:

1. Cf. *Staatslexikon der Görresgesellschaft*, 3rd and 4th ed., IV, 588 (Freiburg, 1916). According to calculations by the Roman Propaganda, there were estimated to be 304 million Catholics in 1914. Recently, the global population was estimated at 1,800 million—of which 470 million were attributed to Europe, 910 million to Asia, 180 million to the Americas, 160 million to Africa, and 60 million to Australia—though this calculation is not entirely precise.

2. For instance, the Catholic “Society for the Propagation of the Faith” raised a mere 8,113,685 francs in 1913; meanwhile, Protestants from Germany alone contributed 8,950,000 marks in 1911, while those in England, Scotland, and Ireland contributed up to 36,000,000 marks. In 1913, Protestant missions from Canada and the United States generated an income of 50 million marks. Furthermore, the war of 1914–1918 inflicted severe setbacks upon Catholic missions in the East. Father Fryderyk Schwager rightly draws attention—in his work *Die brennende Missionsfrage der Gegenwart* (Steyl, 1914)—to the dangers threatening Catholic missions posed by Protestant propaganda. Particularly in Syria, India, and Japan, we observe great activity among Protestant missionaries; moreover, the Methodists display a fanatical zeal—stopping at nothing—in their efforts to draw Catholics into their sect, even within Rome itself. Consequently, in an address delivered in 1915 to a delegation from the Roman association “Opera per la preservazione della Fede in Roma,” Pope Benedict XV referred to these missionaries—who sought to ensnare the impoverished Roman populace by means of money—as “emissaries of Satan.”

3. Even Protestants themselves admit that, in terms of the spirit of self-sacrifice, Protestant missionaries cannot equal their Catholic counterparts—for even in pagan lands, they do not forget the comforts of family life, nor the conveniences, politics, and commerce.

4. In 1804, the “Bible Society” was founded in London; in the single year of 1830, it distributed 632,676 copies of the New Testament, and currently, it prints the Bible in 440 languages.

5. This name derives from the Portuguese word *feitiço*—from the Latin *factitius*—meaning, that which is made by hand. Strictly speaking, a fetish is a spirit confined within a material object—such as a stone, a piece of wood, a vessel, etc.—by means of a sorcerer’s incantation. There exist family, communal, and tribal fetishes, among others.

6. The theory of evolution in matters of religion is also championed by certain Polish writers, such as Witold Schreiber (*Twórcy bogów: Z tajemnic wierzeń ludów pierwotnych* [The Creators of Gods: From the Mysteries of the Beliefs of Primitive Peoples], Lwów 1904), Ignacy Radliński (*Katolicyzm a Modernizm i myśl wolna* [Catholicism, Modernism, and Free Thought], Warsaw 1912), August Wróblewski, Erazm Majewski, and others. (Cf. Rev. Dr. Szydelski, *Studia nad początkami religii* [Studies on the Origins of Religion], p. 442).

Does this theory—known as progressivism and condemned by the First Vatican Council (7) — have any basis in history? No; for the records of history do not reach back to the very cradle of humanity, and there is but one book—known as the Bible—that explains the origin of man and of religion; yet its testimony is precisely to the contrary. Perhaps, then, the newer sciences—such as geology, paleontology, anthropology, and ethnology—confirm this theory? Again, the answer is no; for current research indicates only the following: first, that the oldest human skulls or skeletons—discovered in Mauer, Neanderthal, Heidelberg, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Spy, Krapina, and elsewhere (8) —do not in the least prove that man originated from apes; second, that the antiquity of the human race is not as great as some researchers surmise (9); and third—insofar as one can judge from the excavations conducted to date—that primitive man was not merely some higher form of animal, but a rational being, for... ...he thought, spoke, and constantly refined his inventions—demonstrating that he grasped the principle of causality and, by reasoning from created things, could thereby attain knowledge of the Supreme Being and Creator of the world; furthermore, that he possessed religious concepts and sentiments (10)—and believed in the immortality of the soul—can be inferred from the fact that he treated his deceased with a certain reverence, buried them amidst distinct rituals, and laid them to rest in so-called dolmens—that is, tombs—specifically constructed for this purpose (11).

Thus, the theory of Haeckel and other proponents of materialistic monism (which we shall address in greater detail elsewhere) has proven to be entirely groundless; and what, then, are we to make of the hypotheses that purport to explain the origins of religion (12)? Among these hypotheses, the most important are: 1) Tylor’s animism—that is, the worship of nature spirits and deceased ancestors—based on the belief that all things and phenomena observed in nature are living entities and possess within themselves an all-pervading spirit; and, secondly, that the “shadows”—or spirits—of ancestors interact with humans and exert influence upon them, such that one must, in various ways (for instance, through prayers, incantations, and sacrifices), seek to win their favor (13) 4); 2) Manism, or ancestor worship, from which the concept of the soul is said to have originated, as well as the belief in spirits (or demons) and in deities—initially polytheistic, and subsequently monotheistic (14) 5); 3) Magic (prae-animism, shamanism)—that is, sorcery, or the evocation—by means of certain mysterious acts—of phenomena of a more or less... ...more specifically, the harnessing of natural forces (variously termed *mana*, *orenda*, *zuakanda*, *manitou*, etc.) and the influences of the invisible world (15) 1) for human service, while simultaneously identifying these very forces with a Supreme Being; — 4) Totemism (or Animalism) and Tabooism—that is, the rendering of religious veneration to specific classes and types of animals, plants, or inanimate objects (16) 2), based upon a specific covenant established between a family or clan on the one hand, and an invisible spirit on the other (17) 3); — 5) Pan-Babylonism—that is, the derivation of religion from astral concepts, specifically from the worship of the moon and the sun, the cradle of which is held to have been Chaldea (18) 4); — 6) and finally, Naturism—that is, the derivation of religion from the idea of ​​infinity, and the employment of words denoting some striking material object to express the concept of the Deity—as, for (e.g., the sky, the sun, the moon, fire, lightning, etc. (19) 5).

These hypotheses are valid insofar as individual phenomena of religious life are concerned; however, regarding the origins of religion, they contain erroneous assertions, and their proponents disagree among themselves—such that what some affirm, others deny.

Footnotes

7. Sess.‎ ‎III‎ ‎de‎ ‎revel.‎ ‎Can.‎ ‎3

8. Cf. Fr. Dr. Szydelski, Vol. 1, pp. 216 ff.

9. While De Mortellet estimates the age of prehistoric man in Europe at 230 to 240 years, Father Hugo Obermair accepts only 50 years, and Father Bouyssonie 18 years. Formerly, theologians took into account only biblical genealogies—albeit incomplete ones—which is why Saint Jerome calculated the span from Adam to Christ the Lord as merely 3,944 years. More recent scholars also take into consideration the geological strata in which human remains are found; however, there is no consensus among them.

10. The favorite assertion of the proponents of evolution—that religion supposedly evolved from animal instinct—deserves to be rejected for this very reason alone: ​​that even the most primitive peoples possess their own religions, whereas in even the highest animal species, not a trace of religious sentiment can be discerned. (Schanz, loc. cit., Ch. 12).

11. In addition to dolmens, other structures associated with religious worship include menhirs (tall stone boulders), cromlechs (long rows of such stones), massebas, and baetyls (i.e., sacred stones).

12. Dr. Seitz, Father Radziszewski, and Father Szydelski write extensively on these matters in the cited works.

13. The principal originator of this hypothesis—which is grounded in the concept of the soul (*anima*), derived from reflections on dreams, lethargy, and death—was Edward Burnett Tylor. This hypothesis also found favor with Friedrich Schultze, John Lubbock, Julius Lippert, and Wilhelm Wundt.

14. Herbert Spencer, in particular, defended this theory.

15. Such were Fraser, King, Vierkandt, Preuss, Hubert, Marett, Hartland, and Mauss. The proponents of this hypothesis even classified the Sacraments of the Church as magical practices—a fact that attests to their profound ignorance, or perhaps even to their ill will. They also erroneously assert that sorcery preceded belief in the Divine.

16. The word *totem* (known as *otem* among North American Indians, *Kobong* in Australia, and *Pakariska* in South America) denotes a species of animal or plant that a clan regards as its ancestor, and which it adopts as its guardian and its standard—that is, its rallying symbol. The prohibition against killing or consuming the totem is known as *taboo*. Within this system, religion constitutes a body of beliefs and practices pertaining to things deemed sacred and inviolable; such a form of religion is encountered particularly among indigenous peoples in Australia, Africa, and North America.

17. Émile Durkheim based his sociological theory—that is, the theory according to which the source of religion lies in the social factor—upon totemism, the foremost proponents of which were Robertson Smith and S. Reinach.

18. Yes, Winckler, Stucken, Jeremias.

19. Thus Max Müller, who places henotheism—that is, the instinctive perception of a Supreme Being—at the very beginning of the development of religion.

Catholic theologians, however, unanimously teach that God Himself created the first parents and instituted marriage in Paradise—that He became their teacher and educator—that, through infused knowledge, He bestowed upon them an understanding of the natural truths necessary for life and for the upbringing of children—that, moreover, He elevated them to a supernatural state—namely, to divine sonship—by enlightening their minds with supernatural light and endowing them with a primordial supernatural love, together with specific privileges; and that they were to transmit this state to all their posterity, had they remained obedient to the Divine Will—that, when they sinned, they brought down God’s punishment upon themselves and upon the entire human race; yet that God, in His mercy, promised to send a Redeemer and Savior, who was to be born of a woman (20). In explaining what is meant by primordial revelation (21), Catholic theologians rely upon the pronouncements of the Church’s infallible teaching authority; furthermore, they adduce evidence drawn variously from Sacred Scripture (22), from the unbroken tradition preserved within the Church, from the mythologies of pagan peoples—to whom accounts regarding the state of our first parents and their fall were transmitted (23)—and from more recent ethnological studies.

According to the testimony of the history of religions, among many peoples, the idea of ​​a single Supreme God shines through their mythological tales—a deity known among the Egyptians as Amon-Ra, among the Babylonians as Bel, among the Indians as Dyaus Pitar (Varuna), among the Persians as Ahura Mazda, among the Chinese as Shangdi, among the Greeks as Zeus, among the Romans as Jupiter, among the Germans as Tiwar, among the Lithuanians as Perkunas, among the Slavs as Dadzbog Swarożyc (24), and so forth. Here, we may cite as witnesses the *Book of the Dead* in Egypt, the oldest prayers in China, the traditions of the *Zend-Avesta* in Persia (25), cuneiform monuments in Chaldea, Vedic hymns (*Rigveda*) in India, and ancient Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Slavic mythologies (26). It goes without saying that the concept of a single, supreme God must be divested of the mythological accretions that introduced polytheism.

III. Ethnology has come to the aid of the history of religions, demonstrating that there is no people on earth without religion; that religious progress does not proceed in a direct line with cultural development; and that the primordial religion was a belief in a single God—the Creator and Lord of all things—that is to say, monotheism, which only later, under the influence of various factors, underwent degeneration; scholars were led to these conclusions by the study of primitive peoples—those standing at the lowest stage of culture—among whom civilizational development had fallen into a state of stagnation, such that today they remain exactly as they were thousands of years ago, and thus best represent the condition of primitive humanity (27).

Footnotes

20. This will be discussed in Volume IV. — Cf. Volume VI, Chapters VII and VIII.

21. In more recent times, the subject of primordial revelation has been addressed by Fr. Schmidt—Lemmonyer in the work titled *La révélation primitive et les données actuelles de la science* (Paris, 1914), and by Józef Feldman in *Paradies und Sündenfall* (Münster, 1913).

22. Cf. Book of Genesis, Chs. II and III. — Ecclesiasticus XVII:1–11; Matthew XIX:4 — Romans V:12, etc.

23. See Feldman 1 c. Liiken Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechtes. Munster 1869.

24. X.‎ ‎Dr.‎ ‎Szydelski ‎I.‎ ‎c.‎ ‎146

25. The founder of this doctrine, contained in the book known as the Avesta, is said to be Zarathustra (Zoroaster in Greek). According to this teaching, there is one supreme God, the Creator of all things (Ahura Mazda—Ormazd). Beneath Him are various spirits: the Amesha Spentas, the Yazatas, and the Fravashis (Ferwer). Opposing Ormazd stands the evil spirit Ahriman (Angra Mainyu)—a being created within time—accompanied by his own spirits, the Daevas. The intermediary between Ahura Mazda and humanity is Mithra (the sun god). In this religion—also referred to as Mazdaism—priests known as Magi offered sacrifices of water and fire. It was once professed by the Persians and the Medes; today, however, it is followed by a small number of Persians residing in India and by the Guebres in Persia.

26. Gutberlet: Lehrbuch der Apologetik 61 sq.

27. Already in 1884, A. W. Howitt first investigated the secret religious customs of the Australian peoples (Cf. Seitz Natiirliche Religionsbegriindung 5 420 sq).

Specifically, Father Wilhelm Schmidt of the Society of the Divine Word directed particular attention toward the pygmy (dwarf) peoples of Africa and the Australian peoples—found in Australia and Polynesia—who are counted among the most ancient on Earth. After extensive study, he arrived at the conviction—which he substantiated in his works (28) —that while the culture of these peoples is exceedingly primitive and impoverished, one nevertheless encounters among them relatively lofty religious and moral concepts. Indeed, the idea of ​​a single Supreme Being is not foreign to them—albeit an idea disfigured by a belief in sorcery and by anthropomorphic notions that attribute a human form to the Deity. It is, therefore, a form of relative monotheism.

Similar observations have been made among the Veddas on the island of Ceylon, among the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, among the Maasai, and elsewhere; and this is confirmed—specifically regarding the Pygmies of Africa—by Father Alfred Le Roy, a missionary of the Congregation of the White Fathers of the Holy Spirit (and currently a bishop), who spent twenty years studying the beliefs, way of life, and institutions of the Negrillos and Bantu peoples. He arrived at the following conclusions: that these primitive peoples believe in a Supreme Being who is the Creator, Ruler, and Lord of the world, as well as the Father of mankind;—that, in addition to Him, they acknowledge spirits independent of the material world—both good and evil;—that they recognize the immortality of the soul and the distinction between good and evil, and, generally speaking, possess a conscience and a moral sense;—and that they maintain a form of religious worship which includes prayers, sacrifices, and various ceremonies;— ...that the family—alongside religion—constitutes the main pillar upon which their social life rests. Moreover, Father A. Le Roy asserts that, in religious and moral terms, the Pygmies not only stand higher than the peoples of the black race among whom they are scattered, but—what might seem improbable—they actually surpass even the Greeks and Romans of their finest eras. (29).

It was the Protestant Andrew Lang (d. 1912)—who subjected the religious state of the least civilized peoples of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia to rigorous and conscientious criticism—who openly expressed his conviction (30) that these peoples, despite their great stagnation—and sometimes even cultural degeneration—possess relatively elevated religious concepts; that the Australians, situated at the lowest rung of culture and standing closest to the primitive world, hold a very clear belief in a Supreme Being, regarded as the Creator of all things, as the Guardian, Lawgiver, and Judge of humanity in both earthly and afterlife existence; that the idea of ​​God is purer the more primitive a given people happens to be; that religion, even among the wildest of peoples, is inextricably linked with morality; and that one must distinguish the element... ...religious from the mythological, and that the latter brought about the degeneration of religion. (31).

IV. The corruption of the true religion—which originated in primordial revelation—occurred in the following manner: man, having fallen under the dominion of sensuality as a consequence of his sins, transferred the worship due to the one and invisible God onto lower spirits—whether good or evil—and subsequently onto celestial bodies and the forces of nature, regarding them as representations of divine attributes. To these representations, moreover, he assigned a visible form—whether of humans, animals, or inanimate objects—and thus, from monotheism, he descended into polytheism, the ultimate expression of which is fetishism.

Nor is this to be wondered at, seeing as even within the Christian world we encounter individuals who reject the existence of God, yet nonetheless place their faith in superstitions and possess their own fetishes. It goes without saying that this corruption of religion was significantly influenced by climatic conditions, historical events, and the varying degrees of culture among different peoples—particularly by an unbridled imagination, a propensity for creating or poetically embellishing myths, and a national pride eager to elevate its own pantheon to the highest possible stature. It is also a certainty that the contamination of religion advanced alongside the growth of civilization, reaching its zenith during the era of the Roman Empire, such that in the Rome of that time, as many as 30,000 different deities were counted.

Even the adversaries of Christianity acknowledge its superiority over polytheism, although the occasional individual—such as Goethe, for instance—has been known to yearn for the cheerful deities of Greece and Rome. Conversely, certain writers from this very camp prefer the “philosophical religions” of Brahmanism, Confucianism, and Buddhism over Christianity. Are they right?

Let us take a look at these religions.

V. In its broader sense, Brahmanism is the religion of 150 million people inhabiting East India; in its stricter sense, it is the religion of the Brahmins—that is, the priestly caste—who comprehend the teachings contained in the ancient hymns known as the Vedas (32), as well as in the commentaries upon these Vedas, namely the so-called Brahmanas and Upanishads. The primordial religion of the Hindus (33)—insofar as one can infer from the hymns of the Rig-Veda—was monotheism: that is, the belief in a single God, the Creator of heaven and earth. In pre-Vedic times, this deity was known as Varuna—the ruler, or King, of the gods. Mitra—the God of daylight—was regarded as the intermediary between God and man. In a subsequent period—during which the Vedas were compiled—Indra, the god of rain and war, was worshipped as the god of the heavens and the sun, while Varuna became the god of the sea and storms.

Later, pantheism penetrated Indian philosophy—bringing with it pessimism, a belief in the transmigration of souls (metempsychosis), elements of unreality and illusion (Atman and Maya), and the ethical systems of Samkhya and Yoga (34); and between the 14th and 9th centuries BC, Brahmanism supplanted Vedic worship.

Footnotes

28. Stellung‎ ‎der‎ ‎Pygmaenvolker‎ ‎—‎ ‎Ursprung‎ ‎der‎ ‎Gottesidee‎ ‎—‎ ‎Grundlinien‎ ‎einer‎ ‎Vergleichung‎ der‎ ‎Religionen‎ ‎und‎ ‎Mythologien‎ ‎der‎ ‎ausłronesischen‎ ‎Volker‎ ‎Wien.‎ ‎1910‎ ‎—‎ ‎Cf.‎ ‎also‎ ‎Christian‎ ‎Pesch.‎ ‎S.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎Gott‎ und Gółter.‎ ‎Freiburg‎ ‎1890‎ ‎—‎ ‎W.‎ ‎Schneider‎ ‎Die‎ ‎Naturvdlker.‎ ‎Paderborn 1885‎ ‎—‎ ‎A.‎ ‎Bros.‎ ‎La‎ ‎religion‎ ‎des‎ ‎peuples‎ ‎non‎ ‎civilisee.‎ ‎Paris‎ ‎1909‎ ‎— ‘Cathrein’ ‎Einheit ‎des ‎sitł. ‎ ‎Bewusstseins ‎ ‎Freiburg ‎ 1914.

29. *La Religion des Primitifs* (Paris, p. 474). This work was published in Polish by the Library of Christian Works in Warsaw in 1912.

30. Lang’s major works are: *The Making of Religion* (London, 1900), *Magic and Religion* (London, 1901), and *Myth, Ritual, and Religion* (London, 1901).

31. Cf. Fr. Radziszewski, *op. cit.*, pp. 127 ff., and Fr. Szydelski, *op. cit.*, p. 350. Lang’s “pre-animistic theory”—according to which humanity commenced the development of religious concepts with a form of monotheism, while polytheism, animism, magic, fetishism, and the entire superstitious aspect of religion are later developments—does not appeal to the proponents of Comtean positivism and Darwinian evolution; consequently, they typically dismiss it with silence. Columbus, too, encountered a belief in a Supreme Being on the island of Cuba.

32. The first book of these Vedas is called the Rig and contains hymns in verse; the second, the Yajur, consists of prayers in prose; the third, the Samana, comprises hymns sung during religious rites; and the fourth, the Atharmana, contains formulas for incantations and consecrations.

33. The indigenous inhabitants of India—namely, the Dravidians and the brown Kushites—were conquered by the white Aryans in the 16th and 14th centuries BC (cf. I. 3, Holzwarth, *Universal History*, Vol. I, p. 375).

34. Yoga is a pantheistic union with the All-Being. The means to achieve this is to induce oneself into a state of artificial ecstasy—that is, into an artificial, and sometimes prolonged, slumber—a process in which Indian fakirs employ hypnosis and breath-holding.

According to the religion of the Brahmins—the priests (also referred to as “those who pray”) (35) —Brahma is the manifestation of a divine essence known as *Swayambhu*; it is, at the same time, the World Soul—that is, the very being and light of the world. From itself, it brings forth all entities, ranging from human beings to stones and the earth; and to it, all these entities eventually return. Brahmin ethics prescribe rigorous asceticism as a means of mortifying the material nature within oneself—and indeed, even one’s own individuality—while strictly forbidding the killing of animals and contact with ritually impure objects.

Regarding religious worship, it was only under the influence of Buddhism that the devotees of Brahma began to construct temples—doing so, for the most part, within subterranean caves. This same influence is also evident in the development of the doctrine of the *Trimurti* (the Indian Trinity) and in the ethical system known as *Yoga*—that is, the practice of spiritual absorption.

In the social sphere, Brahmanism introduced—specifically, the Code of Manu—a division into four castes, the fourth of which (the Shudras) lives in humiliation and contempt (36). Popular religion lapsed into polytheism—extending even to fetishism—as well as into zoolatry (the worship of animals) and demonolatry (the veneration of and invocation of Satan) (37). Furthermore, Hinduism has spawned a vast number of sects, which can be broadly categorized into two main types: Vaishnavism and Shaivism.

Vaishnavism posits an eternal, immutable, invisible, and impersonal world-spirit—known as Brahma—which, in conjunction with three constituent elements (the *gunas*), manifests itself as Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the Destroyer). This constitutes the so-called *Trimurti*—the Indian Trinity—which bears not the slightest resemblance to the Christian Trinity. The tenets of this sect also encompass the concept of the *avatara*—that is, the successive incarnation of the deity Vishnu—such that in India, any prominent individual who, during their lifetime, distinguished themselves through talent, virtue, asceticism, or social influence is, after death, regarded as an *avatara* and accorded divine worship; currently, there are said to be 330 million such *avataras* in existence there. Among the deities representing incarnations of Vishnu, Krishna—also known as Bhagavat—has attained the greatest renown. (the Blessed One)—so named (38)—who, according to Hindu conceptions, as the twentieth—and thus final—incarnation of Vishnu, became a teacher to mankind, revealing the truth concerning the All-Being, while serving simultaneously as both Savior and Sacrifice. Some writers perceive in Krishnaism—which currently counts devotees even beyond the borders of India—a certain analogy with Christianity, regarding Krishna as a forerunner of the Incarnate Word; however, there can be no question of any substantive resemblance, nor of any influence of Hindu literature upon the Gospels. Generally speaking, Vaishnavism—though divided into a multitude of sects—stands on a higher plane than do other branches of the Hindu religion.

Shaivism—to which approximately 100 million Hindus adhere—is generally characterized as the cult of Shiva: the god who is simultaneously creator and destroyer, ascetic and libertine. As the creator, he is typically represented in temples by means of the grotesque symbols of the *linga* and *yoni* (39); as the destroyer, however, he assumed a terrifying form, and—until 1829 (when the practice was prohibited by the British government)—he received human sacrifices. Fanatical devotees of this deity drown themselves in the Ganges in his honor, hurl themselves from cliffs into the abyss, or cast themselves beneath the wheels of the sacred chariot of Juggernaut; alternatively, they inflict terrible tortures upon themselves, for suicide (*sati*) and self-mortification (*yoga*) are regarded as religious acts. Until 1838, it was not uncommon for wives and female slaves to be burned alive on funeral pyres alongside the corpses of their husbands or masters, while... The priestesses of Shiva—known as *devadasis*, or “slaves of the god”—pay him homage through unbridled debauchery with Brahmins or other worshippers of the deity. Equally abominable is the idol representing Shiva’s consort—variously known as Kali, Durga, or Sati—to whom, until the year 1836, blood sacrifices of slain children were offered, alongside prostitution performed as a religious duty (40). Within Shaivism, forms of zoolatry and demonolatry have also taken root. Such is the face of Hinduism—in its most extreme evolutionary form—a religion upon which modern Theosophists (led by Annie Besant) heap lavish praise. Faced with resistance from these Hindu sects—as well as from Islam, Protestant pastors, and (it must be noted) the Theosophists—the propagation of the Catholic faith does not proceed as rapidly as it did in the days of Saint Francis Xavier (d. 1552).

Footnotes

35. Some writers call them Brahmins.

36. According to Brahminical doctrine, Brahma brought forth the caste of Brahmins from his mouth, the caste of Kshatriyas from his arms, the caste of Vaishyas from his knee, and the caste of Shudras from his foot.

37. Cf. *Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia* (based on Wetzer and Welte’s *Theological Encyclopedia*). Vol. XVIII, p. 246 ff. — Dr. Paweł Schanz, *Christian Apologetics* (translated from German in the *Library of Christian Works*). Vol. IV, p. 39 ff. Warsaw, 1905. — *Gazeta Kościelna*, 1916, No. 4.

38. Krishna is mentioned in Indian epic works—namely, the *Mahabharata* and the *Ramayana*—as well as in the *Bhagavata Purana* and the *Vishnu Purana*. (Cf. Rev. Dr. Szydelski, *Historia religii i religia objawiona* [History of Religions and Revealed Religion], Lwów 1916, pp. 85 ff.)

39. The Linga is an ancient phallus, serving as a symbol of fertility.

40. Similar idols also existed in the pre-Christian world: Bel, Baal, Chem, Melkart, Chamos, ‎Moloch,‎ ‎Astarte,‎ ‎(X.‎ ‎Władysław Zaborski‎ ‎T.‎ ‎J.‎ ‎Religion of the Eastern Aryans ‎page 348).

Let us now turn to China.

VI. Confucius (Kong-fu-tse—that is, the Venerable Master of the Kung family—or Kong-tse, and originally Chungni) was born around 552 B.C. in the Chinese city of Kiufu, into a distinguished family; even in his youth, he was distinguished by an ardent thirst for knowledge and a gentle disposition. Later, he became a mandarin and served as a minister on several occasions; however, he also encountered opposition when, in his homeland—which was at the time in great turmoil, being fragmented into principalities almost entirely independent of the supreme Emperor—he began to propagate his political and ethical views, which, with the assistance of his disciples, he committed to writing in his “canonical” books (41). He took upon himself the task of uplifting his countrymen by guiding them back to their ancient laws and customs, as well as by strengthening monarchical authority and social order. As an itinerant teacher—and later as the governor of a district (Lu)—he called for the amelioration of the prevailing dismal conditions; yet it was only after his death (479 BC) that he came to be revered as the master of the entire nation, to the extent that emperors themselves offered sacrifices at his tomb. From the year 54 AD onward, temples even began to be erected in his honor, within which fragrant candles are burned in tribute to him.

And how, then, did Confucius attain such prominence? It was in this manner: having discerned the spirit of his countrymen, he tailored his system to their specific outlooks and needs—a system characterized primarily by materialism, utilitarianism, and formalism.

In his time, the religion of the Chinese was a nebulous pantheism, tinged with the worship of stars, nature, and ancestors; indeed, they even lacked a distinct term for the concept of a Deity, such that they employed only the word *Tien* (Heaven) or *Shang-Ti*—a term signifying both “Heaven” and “Supreme Lord” (42)—though it seems certain that, in the past, their religion had inclined more closely toward monotheism. They possessed no distinct priestly class; nevertheless, sacrifices in honor of the deceased were a widespread practice—offered by officials, together with the Emperor, on behalf of the state, and by fathers on behalf of their families. Now, Confucius left these beliefs entirely untouched—so much so, in fact, that he rarely even mentioned the term *Shang-Ti* in his writings, perceiving the Deity as merely some indeterminate and impersonal entity. ...he acknowledged; nor did he express his opinion as to whether he accepted the immortality of the soul; and while he retained the cult of ancestors and external sacrifices, he dismissed prayer as superstition.

As for Confucius’s ethical principles (43), his ideal is a balance between reason and sensuality in all manifestations of life—opportunism, or adaptation to circumstances—the earthly happiness of both society and the individual—absolute obedience to monarchical and paternal authority—a religious life confined within the sphere of the state—and, finally, justice, simplicity, and humanity. These principles also appealed to many enemies of Christianity; it is therefore no surprise that Voltaire and the Encyclopedists loudly extolled the Chinese sage, and that even today, admirers of his are not lacking within the positivist camp.

To this day, the Chinese are guided by these very principles—principles accompanied by an indifference toward religion, the subjugation of women (44), moral corruption, a relentless pursuit of wealth, an inflated sense of self-importance, and a contempt for foreigners. They harbor a profound aversion to Christian ideas (45), fearing a complete upheaval in every sphere of life; and just how deeply they detest the “white devils” was demonstrated in the year 1900, when so many missionaries and other Christians fell beneath the blades of the frenzied “Boxers.” And who, then, could possibly feel any enthusiasm for Confucianism (46)? Alongside the state religion of Confucius—which today numbers 235 million adherents in China (47) and serves, as it were, as an official cult (48)—there exists in that same land the religion of Tao: a doctrine of reason and virtue introduced by the philosopher Laotse (whose actual name was Li-po-pang). This “venerable teacher”—born in 604 B.C. and thus a contemporary of Confucius—encapsulated his teachings in the book *Tao Te Ching*. Schanz, in his *Apology of Christianity* (Vol. IV, p. 122), described this work as “the most noteworthy product of knowledge and religious philosophy outside the sphere of divine revelation”—yet it remains incomprehensible even to the very priests of Taoism. According to his system, the primordial element of all things is Tao (”Reason”—alternatively translated as “the Way” or “the Law”): an immaterial and boundless essence that existed prior to the creation of the heavens. ...and of the earth, emerging from non-existence; this would, therefore, be God conceived pantheistically—the source from which the God of Heaven, known as Shang Ti, originates. As for ethics, Lao-tzu advocates, above all, contemplation—so as to abandon the illusory world of appearances and immerse oneself in the Primordial Reason—along with self-denial, temperance, and benevolence. It is for this reason that Jesuit missionaries—and subsequently the missionary Hue (*L’Empire chinois* II, 5), Abel Rémusat (*Mélanges asiatiques* I, 91), and Harlez (*Les religions de la Chine*)—perceived in the ideas of this philosopher traces of the tradition of primordial revelation, or, alternatively, a certain affinity with Christian doctrine. Today, only a small number of Chinese people adhere to the religion of the Tao; its priests and priestesses—led by a High Priest—live in celibacy, devoting themselves to magic, astrology, and necromancy. ...and to other superstitious practices, and even to the cult of the Buddha.

The philosopher Chu Hsi (who died circa 200 AD) counts more adherents among Chinese scholars; he outright rejected the existence of a Deity and the immortality of the soul, and—much like modern-day monists—proclaimed that everything originated from matter and advocated a morality liberated from the bonds of religion.

Footnotes

41. These books are divided into “great” (Shu-Ching, Li-Ching, Shih-Ching, Yok-Ching, Yik-Ching) and “small.” The *Chun-Chiu* also carries great authority, while the *Ta-Hsueh* contains Confucius’s admonitions to rulers.

42. The early Catholic missionaries—and the Jesuits in particular—held a more favorable view of the ancient Chinese religion and found traces of monotheism within it; however, after a deeper examination of the writings of Confucius and of religious conditions in China, this optimism had to be significantly tempered.

43. Confucius expounded the doctrine of the three main relationships (between monarch and subjects, father and son, and husband and wife), as well as the five virtues and the five duties of people toward one another.

44. A man buys himself a wife, and he has as many wives as he can feed. Impoverished parents not infrequently cast out or sell their children.

45. According to an ancient inscription, Christianity reached China in the year 635. In the 17th century, the Catholic religion spread freely thanks to the influence that learned Jesuits—Matteo Ricci, Verbiest, and Adam Schall—held at the court; however, times of persecution followed thereafter.

46. Cf. Wetzer und Weltes Kirchenlexicon 2 Aufl. III. B. Confutse sq. Amiot ‎Vie‎ ‎de‎ ‎Confucius.‎ ‎Paris‎ ‎1786‎ ‎—‎ ‎Plath‎ ‎Confucius‎ ‎und seiner‎ ‎Schiiller‎ ‎Leben‎ ‎und‎ ‎Lehren.‎ ‎Miinchen‎ ‎1868‎ ‎—‎ ‎Harlez‎ ‎Les‎religions de‎ ‎la‎ ‎Chine‎ ‎1865.

47. In Japan, Confucianism merged with a folk religion known in Chinese as Shintao—that is, the Way or Teaching of the Spirits—and in Japanese as Kami-no-michi—that is, the Voice of the Spirits.

48. In the parliament of the young Chinese Republic, there were even efforts to proclaim the teachings of Confucius as the religion of the government and the nation—while still preserving freedom of worship—and, conversely, to make them the foundation of moral instruction in the reformed schools, characterizing them as a “science of progress and civilization.” However, Catholics opposed these proposals, and they were joined in their opposition by Protestants, Buddhists, Taoists, and Muslims. The only measure ultimately enacted was a decree stipulating that the President of the Republic and representatives of local authorities were to offer sacrifices to Heaven and to Confucius twice a year on behalf of the people. The future alone will reveal what turn these matters will take following the untimely death of China’s first president and modernizer, Yuan Shikai (d. 1916).

Even before the Christian era, Buddhism spread throughout China—known there as the religion of *Fo* or *Foto*—though it became intermingled with ancestor worship and other polytheistic beliefs, such that it bears little resemblance to the actual teachings of the Buddha (49). A vast number of Buddhist monks—while not hostile toward Christians, nor enjoying a particularly good reputation—devote themselves to reciting formulaic prayers and burning incense or strips of paper before idols or at the graves of the deceased, while others dedicate themselves to a hermit’s life.

It may be said that, in matters of religion, modern-day Chinese people tend toward skepticism and practical atheism, whereas among the unenlightened strata of the populace, idolatry and superstition still persist (50).

VII. Buddhism is making more noise today; indeed, matters have reached such a pass that among Christians—specifically in Paris (51), London, and Berlin—groups of Buddha’s devotees are forming and erecting temples in his honor; furthermore, some writers place Buddha above Christ and assert that Christianity has borrowed many “legends,” moral precepts, and ceremonies from Buddhism. Let us examine this religion more closely (52). According to Buddhist texts—which date from a later era and have woven the life of the Buddha out of fables and legends—the founder of Buddhism was the son of the king of the land of Behar, situated beneath the Himalayas (53). His father was said to be named Suddhodana, of the Sakya lineage, while he himself was called Sarvarthasidda or Siddhartha (”perfect in every respect”), bearing the epithet Sakyashimba—that is, the Lion of the Sakya family. Later, he was to adopt the name Sakyamuni (meaning a monk or hermit of the Sakya clan) or Gautama (”he who has mortified the senses”), for among his ancestors was said to be a renowned poet and saint by the name of Gautama. In his youth, he took three wives and immersed himself in sensual pleasures; it was not until his twenty-ninth year—moved by the sight of human misery (54)—that he left the palace. ...of royal lineage, to attend the schools of the Brahmins clad in a beggar’s garb, and then again, in the wild wilderness, to devote himself to contemplation and asceticism; here, too, he overcame the temptations of the Prince of Darkness, named Mara. Having attained perfect enlightenment amidst deep meditation beneath the Bodhi tree—whence originated his name, Buddha, meaning “the Enlightened One”—he began, around 588 B.C., to proclaim his Four Noble Truths (*āryāṇi satyāni*) concerning the origin of suffering and the means of liberation from it; and he did so not only to the three privileged classes but also to the lowest strata of society (the Shudras and Chandalas), a course of action that won him many followers. The principal theater of his ministry was the city of Shravasti, where a great *vihāra*—a type of monastery—was built for him. He died around 543 BC in Kusinara, as an eighty-year-old man (55), having uttered these words: “Nothing is permanent; everything that has come into being passes away; strive unceasingly.” Subsequently, his remains were cremated on a pyre, and his ashes were placed in eight urns—one of which was to be discovered in 1909 within a Buddhist monastery. However, this biography is not entirely certain; there are even scholars—such as the learned Senart—who assert that the Buddha never existed at all (56). After his death, his disciples gathered and transcribed the teachings he had delivered, to which fantastic legends regarding his life and miracles were later added. As for the collection of writings concerning the Buddha—said to number 84,000—modern authors distinguish between two canons: the Southern and the Northern. The former, Compiled in the Pali language 400 years after the death of the Buddha, it contains the “three baskets” of teachings (Tripitaka)—namely, the Buddha’s sermons (Sutra-Pitaka), disciplinary rules and legends (Vinaya-Pitaka), and metaphysical views (Abhidharma-Pitaka); the second is written in Sanskrit, and within it—particularly the *Lalita Vistara*—is a fabric of fanciful myths and legends that portray the Buddha as a superhuman, miracle-working being; these, however, cannot be regarded as historical sources, even though they are held in high esteem among Buddhists (57).

What are the fundamental truths in the teachings of the Buddha? First and foremost, it must be noted that the Buddha embraced the ideas he encountered in Brahmanism—namely: that every deed receives its reward or punishment here on earth; that the soul, after death, passes into various beings and wanders through the world until it is completely purified, thereby enabling it to merge with the Universal Soul; and, finally, that the earth is rife with suffering, from which man seeks deliverance. Yet, the Buddha differed from the Brahmins in this respect: having failed to find inner peace himself through the rigorous asceticism they advocated, he pointed out a different path to salvation. Thus, in his “Sermon at Benares”—which he is said to have delivered to five hermits in response to their inquiry as to how one might attain perfection—he replied as follows (58): “There are two extremes from which one ought...” ...to steer clear of—whoever wishes to lead a spiritual life.

What, then, are these two extremes? One is a life of indulgence and sensual pleasure—a life that is base, ignoble, unspiritual, unworthy, and futile; the other is a life of self-mortification—a life that is painful, unworthy, and futile. The Perfect One—that is, the monk—remains far removed from these two extremes; for he has discovered the path that lies in the middle—a path that opens the eyes, awakens the spirit, and leads to tranquility, to insight, to enlightenment, and to “Nirvana.”

The religious-philosophical system of the Buddha—precisely defined by the four “Great Buddhist Councils”—rests upon an extreme pessimism: that is, upon the conviction that not only is the world replete with evil, but that existence itself is an evil *per se*—particularly given that death is to be followed by a transformation of being, or the continued wandering of the soul through other bodies. Thus, man’s endeavor ought to be to liberate himself from evil—and especially from pain and craving—for the source of suffering lies in the will, with all its inclinations and desires; to this end, one employs deep contemplation of the nothingness of all things, the suppression within oneself of all feelings and desires (59), as well as the observance of specific ethical precepts. In this way, man—devoted to solitary meditation (*dhyana*) and self-denial—may, as if ascending a ladder... One may ascend ever higher and become a Pratyekabuddha—or even a Buddha to others—while personally attaining the ultimate state of bliss: the so-called Nirvana. As to the nature of this Nirvana, Buddhists themselves hold varying views; for some, it signifies the annihilation of one’s very being or individual identity; for others, an immersion into universal existence; and for yet others, a state of utter insensibility—and, by extension, of unperturbed peace and happiness. The simple-minded, however, expect that after death they will take their seats in paradise upon the thrones of the Buddha.

As for strictly religious principles, the Buddha did not concern himself at all with the question of the existence and nature of God; that is to say, he established a religion devoid of belief in a Deity or in an individual afterlife. He also left the Brahmanic deities—along with their countless *devas* and *nayas*—undisturbed; yet, he effectively relegated them to the rank of guardian spirits, themselves subject to change and suffering—conditions above which man, through virtue and wisdom, is capable of rising. He himself bore witness to his own status, declaring that he was “the most enlightened of all beings, gods included.” Thus, it may be said that early Buddhism constitutes a deification of man—or, indeed, a thinly veiled atheism (60). Subsequently, Buddhists began to accord divine honors to the Buddha and to erect temples (*stupas*) over his purported relics (61). Other attributes were also ascribed to him... ...deities, such that in many countries Buddhism degenerated into gross idolatry. This occurred particularly under the influence of abominable Shaivism, which entailed lewd practices and absurd superstitions—such as sorcery and the conjuring of spirits (shamanism).

Regarding ethical principles, Buddhism does not demand that an individual inflict upon themselves such torments as are required by Brahmanism (62); rather, it recommends a more moderate asceticism—namely, the subduing of desires, contemplation, purity, sobriety, and benevolence. In addition to the five prohibitions (do not kill, do not steal, do not engage in sexual misconduct, do not lie, do not become intoxicated), there are six perfections—or supreme virtues—the pinnacle of which is contemplation, comprising four distinct stages; for through these stages, one not only purifies the soul and the heart but also ascends to a higher realm, populated by a multitude of deities and spirits.

According to the teachings of the Buddha, the expiation of sin is achieved through a confession of faith—that is, a public confession—which takes place during the new and full moons, before an assembly of monks.

Those who, striving for perfection, live as mendicants and monks (bhikkhus) in monasteries, take vows—though not for life—and observe celibacy; in addition to the ordinary precepts (pañcasīla), they are required to observe five others (dasasīla). Furthermore, a true son of the Buddha (Bodhisattva) must undergo various ascetic exercises (kammaṭṭhāna), forty of which are enumerated in Ceylon.

Footnotes

49. Emperor Ming-ti officially introduced this religion in 65 AD.

50. Following the establishment of the republic in 1912, Masonic lodges were formed in China—an undertaking to which Professor Sun Yat-sen and Minister Wang Hung-hin contributed in particular. There also exist secret societies there that are hostile to Christians. (Cf. the same author’s *Masonerya*, 4th ed., p. 383.)

51. In 1899, a Buddhist temple—featuring a fantastical form of worship—was opened in Paris, at the Guimet Museum. The first “service” was attended by 200 worshippers, including several prominent Masons.

52. Alfred‎ ‎Berholet:‎ ‎Buddismus‎ und‎ ‎Chrislenlum.‎ ‎4‎ ‎ed.‎ ‎Tubingen‎ ‎1910‎ ‎—‎ ‎Der‎ ‎Buddismus‎ ‎nach‎ ‎dlteren‎ ‎Pali‎ ‎—‎ ‎Werken.‎ ‎Munster 1890‎ ‎—‎ ‎Aiken‎ ‎Bouddisme‎ ‎et‎ ‎Christianisme‎ ‎(from ‎English)‎ ‎Paris‎ ‎1893‎ ‎— Gutberlet‎ ‎Lehrbuch‎ ‎der‎ ‎Apologetik‎ ‎II.‎ ‎B.‎ ‎D.‎ ‎206‎ ‎sq.‎ ‎—‎ ‎Herm.‎ ‎Oltenberg Buddha‎,‎ ‎sein‎ ‎Leben,‎ ‎Lehre‎ ‎und‎ ‎Gemeinde.‎ ‎Berlin‎ ‎1867,‎ ‎—‎ ‎Ugo‎ ‎Mioni Buddha‎ ‎e‎ ‎Cristo.‎ ‎Roma‎ ‎1911‎ ‎—‎ ‎Monthly‎ ‎church‎ ‎Year ‎1912‎ ‎Zeszyt 46.48.‎ ‎Year ‎ 1913 ‎Zeszyt ‎ 53‎ ‎—‎ ‎Holzwarth‎ ‎History ‎universal.‎ ‎Vol. 1‎ ‎page‎ ‎411‎ ‎zq.

53. The capital of this kingdom was the city of Kapilavastu.

54. He was to see by the roadside an old man trembling; a second time, a leper racked by fever; a third time, a rotting corpse; and finally, a hermit.

55. According to other legends, Gautama Buddha was supposed to have lived between 550 and 480 BC. There are many legends about his life, differing from each other.

56. It appears to be a certainty that the Buddha is a historical figure (cf. Prof. Dr. T. Taczak, *Buddhism and Christianity*, p. 33, Poznań 1918). According to the same author, he took only one wife and had a son named Rahula.

57. Buddhists believe that the Buddha existed prior to his birth, and that Gautama (or, as others write it, Gotama) is his final incarnation. Previously, he is said to have been a lion, a peacock, a hare, and the like. His other names include: Sugata (the Happy One), Sattha (Teacher), Jina (Conqueror), Bhagawa (the Blessed One), Lokanatha (Lord of the World), and Dharmaraja (King of Virtue) (Cf. X. Taczak, op. cit., p. 35).

58. Cf. Rev. Dr. Szydelski, 1, col. 136.

59. According to the Buddha, existence itself is evil—along with its root, namely desire; the cause of sensation is human contact with the external world; the cause of contact is the senses; and the cause of the senses is consciousness, residing in the depths of the spirit. Such is the chain of causes (*nidana*) that constitutes the metaphysics of Buddhism. (Cf. Wetzer und Welte’s *Kirchenlexikon*, Vol. II, p. 1406).

60. According to the research of Dr. Timothy Richard (*The New Testament of Higher Buddhism*, London 1910), Buddhism—as established by the so-called Hinayana school—is steeped in atheism. In the school of Nagarjuna, known as the Madhyamikas, Buddhism transformed into nihilism around 100 BC (Fr. Czuj in *Miesięcznik Kościelny*, 1912, p. 254). According to Schanz (*Apol.* IV, 57), Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophical system that may be characterized as agnosticism, atheism, and illusionism.

61. In one of these temples, they display a tooth of the Buddha, measuring over an inch in width. — The Buddha himself considered himself merely a man and laid no claim to a divine mission or to miracles.

62. The Buddhist moral code differs little from the Brahmanical one in theory, but in practice, it is more lenient and does not demand as many sacrifices as Brahmanism.

In general, Buddhist ethics are grounded in hollow forms devoid of inner substance; for they lack a strong foundation rooted in Divine Law, as well as a higher motive—that of love for God. How infinitely inferior, then, are they to Christian ethics; they are, as it were, a body without a spirit. As a positive aspect of Buddhism, one must highlight the teaching regarding the necessity of making amends for one’s faults through contrition and confession; yet contrition bears effect only upon the future, while sanctification is attained solely through Nirvana. Suicide is permissible, though it does not deliver a person from the misery of renewed existence. Strictly speaking, man possesses no soul; thus, when he dies, he perishes entirely—yet his guilt remains behind, and this guilt gives rise to other beings, be they animals or humans; and in this very manner, the transmigration of souls takes place.

Buddhism rejects original sin, and thereby the need for redemption and grace; nor does it have a priesthood, but only an order of monks, whose seniority is determined by age and degree of virtue.

From a social perspective, the Buddha opposed the caste system of Brahmanism, yet he divided society into two classes: monks and laypeople. He confined the monks—subjecting them to a strict rule—within monasteries and in the wilderness, commanding them to live in celibacy, poverty, inactivity, and constant contemplation of the impermanence, misery, transience, and ugliness of created things; in return, however, he promised them the attainment of Nirvana. The laypeople, on the other hand, he permitted to marry, work, and engage in trade and industry—so that they might provide sustenance for the monks—but he excluded them from Nirvana, such that they must remain within *samsara*—that is, in perpetual flux—and continue their journey after death. In addition to the monks, there are also nuns (*bhikkhunis*), who are likewise bound to observe chastity and poverty. Yet, for women, the Buddha proved almost more unjust than Brahmanism, for he likened them to jackals—the very embodiment of malice and perfidy. Consequently, he shattered and degraded the family unit; moreover, through his theory of Nirvana, he stifled all progress and brought about spiritual death. The history of Buddhism stands as fresh proof that the development of true culture is possible only within Christianity.

In liturgical terms—specifically within Tibetan Buddhism, known as Lamaism or the “Yellow Religion” (63), and characterized by a theocratic structure—we encounter hierarchical ranks and certain rites that bear a resemblance to Catholic practices. This stems from the fact that this cult evolved during the Christian era, and thus under the influence of Christians belonging to the Nestorian sect (64). Moreover, certain rites are common to all religions, as they stem from the fundamental needs of human nature and were also transmitted through primordial revelation.

Buddhism did not endure in India in the face of Brahmanism; instead, it spread to the island of Ceylon, to Tibet, to China, and among the Siberian Buryats, absorbing various elements and folk beliefs that altered the Master’s teachings and elevated him personally to the rank of an incarnate god. It is strongest in Tibet, where its spiritual head—who also serves as the secular ruler—is the Dalai Lama, residing in the city of Lhasa and regarded as an incarnation of the Buddha. The second spiritual head is the Tashi Lama—also known as the Panchen Lama—residing in the city of Shigatse. In China, Buddhism has taken on the character of a base idolatry; similarly, in Japan, it has undergone a degeneration, though there it has intermingled with the indigenous religion—namely, Shintoism. In Japanese temples—typically richly adorned, and said to number 72,000— One can behold a vast number of monstrous idols, to which monks—known as *bonzes*—offer various sacrifices (65). Japanese Buddhism is divided into two sects, known as Son and Nichiren; the former rejects prayer, the celibacy of the *bonzes*, and penitential practices, while the latter is characterized by asceticism and fanaticism; yet both venerate Amita—the Buddha—as a supernatural being. Shintoism is the deification of the forces of nature, such as the sun, the moon, the sea, and fire. At the head of the pantheon stands the “Creator of the Universe,” while the “Sun Goddess”—accorded particular reverence by the Japanese—descends from the seventh god; it was her grandson who descended from the heavens onto Mount Kirishimayama, and the origins of the Japanese state are traced back to Jimmu Tenno, the son of the fifth earthly god. The Japanese Emperor is his descendant—and, therefore, a sacred being. Reverence for the Emperor is intertwined with ancestor worship—a characteristic feature of Shintoism. Its shrines—numbering, as is claimed, 164,000—are very simple, and the priests, unlike the Buddhist bonzes, are married.

Among the educated classes, religion has evolved into a moral system devoid of any Deity. It may be said that religious indifferentism prevails among the Japanese, and that their deity is *banzai*—the Fatherland; consequently, their conversion is no easy task (66).

In recent times, certain Protestant writers—such as Lillie, Edmunds, Edwin Arnold, Stix, Seydel, Pfleiderer, van den Bergh, van Eysinga, and others—have put forward the claim that Buddhism significantly influenced the formation of the “Gospel legends” and that Christ is merely a copy of the Buddha; however, serious scholars well-versed in Buddhist literature—such as Oldenberg, Windisch, de la Vallée Poussin, Otto Wecker, and others—have decisively refuted them. The renowned Orientalist Kellogg (a Protestant) demonstrated with irrefutable proofs that between Christ and the Buddha lies an abyss as vast as that between light and darkness, between truth and falsehood (67). While it is true that certain features of similarity exist between the Gospel narratives and the biographies of the Buddha, this resemblance—which is, moreover, quite faint—stems from the fact that the devotees of the Buddha ascribed miraculous powers to him, and [shaped] his life story... They arrayed him in a fantastic garb, drawing upon ancient traditions—and perhaps also upon prophecies concerning a future Savior—which, through the channels of oral tradition and with the aid of Israelite scriptures, had spread throughout the world.

There can be no question of any Buddhist influence on the authors of the Gospels, for at that time there were absolutely no relations between Palestine and India—or, indeed, any of the lands to which Buddhism had spread. Nor is there the slightest trace of Buddhist legends to be found in Jewish literature. Moreover, the oldest Buddhist canon—known as the Tripitaka—was not committed to writing in the sacred Pali language until the first century BC; even then, however, it did not contain a biography of the Buddha. The texts recounting his life—such as the *Saddharma Pundarika*, *Lalita-Vistara*, and *Buddha-Carita*—did not appear until the Christian era (68).

Thus, this latest assault upon Christ and Christianity has failed.

As for Buddhism, it is certain that it is currently undergoing increasing disintegration, and the corruption—even among Buddhist monks—is said to be profound; thus, at the anthropological congress in Munich (1891), Professor Scherman—who was well-acquainted with the state of Buddhism—could rightly assert that “this religion can hold no significance for our own circumstances.” A harsh verdict on Buddhism was also delivered by scholarly researchers, such as Dahlmann: “Buddhism is the very image of atheism... At its core and essence, the predominantly corrosive forces of materialism and nihilism have taken root” (69)—or Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire: “Buddhism is nothing other than a vast fabric of contradictions; it is spiritualism without a soul, virtue without a sense of duty, morality without freedom, and a world without God” (70). Prof. Seitz, too, rightly termed Buddhism—in accordance with the Buddha’s original thought—”religious nihilism” (71). The superiority of Christianity over Buddhism is particularly evident in the fact that Christianity possesses faith in God and in the immortality of the soul, as well as clearly defined dogmas, moral commandments, and social principles—including, among others, the equal status of women—while remaining far removed from polytheism, metempsychosis, magic, and formalism. Nevertheless, some writers from the anti-Christian camp seek to view Buddhism as the “religion of the future” (72), and the number of the Buddha’s devotees is growing in Europe and America. Moreover, in 1914, the Buddhist Association in Trier began publishing a monthly journal there with the aim of propagating so-called “Pali Buddhism”—a movement striving to modernize Buddhism; that is, to liberate it from the oppressive fetters that bind it. ...of dogmatism and religious worship.

That Buddhism appeals to people of this ilk is hardly surprising, for it liberates them from belief in a personal God and in an afterlife, and instead bids them seek happiness in the intoxication of the senses and in a return to Nirvana—that is to say, to nothingness.

Footnotes

63. Lamaism in Mongolia and Siberia—led by some fifteen thousand lamas, or clergy—strives to unite all Mongol tribes.

64. In the 6th century AD, there were Christian communities in India and on the islands of the Indian Ocean. Christians belonging to the Monophysite sect reached China, as evidenced by an inscription from the 8th century discovered in Singan-fu.

65. Some idols are covered with bits of paper—chewed in the mouth—which the devout spit out. If the paper, moistened with saliva, adheres to the statue, it signifies that the prayer has been heard (Schanz, loc. cit., p. 132). Within Buddhist pagodas, there are also “prayer wheels” (Hurdu) which—together with slips of paper containing the petitions of Buddha’s worshippers—spin in a circle; they continue to rotate for a longer or shorter duration, depending on the size of the monetary offering the supplicants have presented to the bonzes.

66. In 1909, Dr. Masaharu Anesaki, a professor of religion at the University of Tokyo, toured Europe to examine the religious state of its inhabitants; upon returning to his home country, he expounded his views in a public lecture. He openly acknowledged that the Catholic Church is the most powerful, most perfect, and most sublime institution in the history of humanity. True Christianity finds its center in Rome. Of all religions, the Catholic faith upholds the principle of authority most steadfastly; it is, therefore, the most suitable for Japan. Its religious orders merit high praise (”Germania,” 1909, No. 227).

67. In the work of The Ligłh Of Asia And X. The Light The Light Of The World. (Quotes X., Taczak, p. 4.)

68. Ot. ‎Wecker ‎Christus ‎und ‎Buddha.‎ ‎Munster.‎ ‎1908

69. I.‎ ‎Dahlmann‎ ‎Buddha‎ ‎im‎Kuliurbild‎ ‎des‎ ‎Ostens.‎ ‎Berlin‎ ‎1898 p.

70. Cited in *Miesięcznik Kość*, 1912, p. 262.

71. Natiirliche‎ ‎Religionsbegriindung.‎ ‎page‎ ‎176

72. See Dr. Maur. Straszewski, *Religia przyszłości*, p. 26 — Korn, *Buddhismus*, II, 75 sq.

VIII. Among religions devoid of faith in God, we must also include the religion of Freemasonry—or, at the very least, that of many of its members. Admittedly, the statutes of the French lodges from 1854 state: “The foundation of the association is faith in the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and love for humanity”; furthermore, at the head of the proclamations issued by this sect, one reads the inscription: “In the name—or to the glory—of the Great Architect of the Universe.” Yet, according to the convictions of many Freemasons in Europe and America, this Architect is not the personal God of the Christians, but rather the creative force of nature.

The French lodges finally grew weary of hypocrisy, to such an extent that in 1877 their Grand Orient expunged from its statutes the belief in the existence of God and in the immortality of the soul; and in their wake followed certain other Grand Orient bodies, thereby openly professing atheism—whereas the English, German, North American, and Italian lodges retained the traditional formulas.

Everywhere, Freemasonry strives to replace the Christian religion with a religion of naturalism and humanitarianism—whose god is humanity itself—and to establish itself as the church of the entire world. It has, moreover, been aptly remarked that Freemasonry acts as a kind of ape, mimicking the Catholic Church; for it possesses not only a distinct organizational structure but also its own liturgy, its own catechism, and its own rites (73)—all while standing as a fierce adversary of the Catholic religion.

IX. In recent times, some writers have sought to construct a single universal religion out of all “cultural” religions, extracting from them only those elements they hold in common—namely, vague ethical theories; the aim of this “religion of the future” is to be the “connection of human beings with society and with nature.”

This “religion of the future” is also championed by the leading figures of socialism—for whom religion is a private, and therefore indifferent, matter—as well as by the propagators of monism (operating in Germany under the name *Monistenbund*) and by the adherents of the American—or, more precisely, the ethical and humanitarian—religion.

American religion is said to owe its origins to Protestant sects in the United States of North America—namely, the Puritans, Unitarians, and Transcendentalists (74); however, it was not until 1876 that Felix Adler founded the so-called Society for Ethical Culture in New York, doing so with the specific aim of replacing religion with culture, and Christian ethics with natural ethics. This association—which counted the *International Journal of Ethics* as its official organ—soon spread across the globe, primarily among Protestants (75), and eventually reached Austria, Warsaw, and Kraków (76).

From it emerged the so-called *Unions chrétiennes*, which shared similar tendencies—namely, the de-emphasis of dogma, a concept of continuous evolution in religion, and a striving for perfection in ethics and humanitarianism. Specifically, the *Unions chrétiennes des jeunes gens* are numerous; alongside them exist similar associations for young women, as well as for Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Korean, and other students. The umbrella organization, the “Alliance universelle,” reported the following figures in 1908: 7,385 affiliated associations, 860,573 members, and 2,864 permanent or traveling secretaries (77).

The Society for Ethical Culture stands in spiritual kinship with the so-called *Association des cogitans* and gave birth to the so-called *Églises institutionnelles*—institutions working in the social sphere intended to take the place of religion—or, in other words, “American parishes,” divided into clubs (for men, young men, and young women) that regularly devote themselves to study, gymnastics, handicrafts, dancing, and the like.

Serving to propagate these ideas—aimed at regenerating society, introducing a new Gospel, and establishing a universal religion for the 20th century (78)—are dedicated periodicals, lectures, schools for training secretaries, international committees and congresses (79), university chairs in the history of religion, and so forth.

The human spirit feels a need for religion; and if it does not know—or does not wish to know—revealed religion, it creates a religion of its own, whether characterized by rationalist and humanitarian traits, or by a pseudo-mystical and occultist orientation.

This latter orientation characterizes the religions of spiritualists, theosophists, Martinists, and modern Gnostics.

X. Spiritism was known in earlier times (as necromancy), but it reappeared in a new guise in 1847 in America (in Hydesville, near New York), whence, in 1852, it spread to Europe in the form of “spinning and rapping tables.” The leader of the spiritualists in America became Jackson Davis, who frequently suffered from nervous seizures, after which he would recount and transcribe alleged revelations from spirits. In France, the principal propagator of spiritism—Allan Kardec (whose real name was Hippolyte Rivail)—began publishing the first spiritualist periodical, titled *Revue Spirite*, as early as 1858; indeed, the number of adherents to this new delusion grew so rapidly that, in 1868, at the “National Congress of Spiritualists” in Rochester, it was proclaimed that their ranks numbered ten million. ...in which, however, there is evident exaggeration. It is a strange fact that even some avowed defenders of materialism and positivism—such as the German astronomer Friedrich Zöllner, the English naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, the London chemist William Crookes, the Parisian physician Paul Gibier, our own positivist Julian Ochorowicz, and others—came to believe in “communications from spirits” (81). Among Poles—besides Ochorowicz, the author of the work *On Miracles and Modern Spiritism* (82)—these doctrines were propagated by Henryk Siemiradzki, I. Kasprowicz, Count Adolf Poniński, and Czyński; and for a brief period, a periodical titled *Światło zagrobowe* [Light from Beyond the Grave] was published in Lwów for this very purpose. And who cannot discern the punishing hand of God in the fact that many opponents of religion came to believe in—at times utterly absurd—”spirit revelations” and participated devoutly in “spiritist séances,” and that not a few, as a result of this, even... ...lost his mind.

It is difficult to ascertain how much truth lies within spiritualistic phenomena—and how much is fraud and illusion—for deception finds a very wide scope in this domain. Among these phenomena—which are evoked with the aid of mediums—the most significant is the appearance of spirits in human form (most frequently hands and feet)—that is to say, the materialization of spirits—as well as direct spirit writing; yet it is precisely here that critical assessment proves difficult, all the more so given that numerous renowned “mediums” have already been caught engaging in skillful imposture (83). It has also been established that certain female mediums suffered from nervous disorders—particularly hysteria—and were therefore prone to falling so readily into a state of ecstasy (trance).

It goes without saying that if spirits do enter into communication with spiritualists, they can be none other than demons; thus, spiritualism is, in essence, Satanism—that is to say, the worship of Satan. Even a prominent proponent of spiritualism himself, Jerzy Sulzer, asserts that more than one professional “medium” has been possessed by an evil spirit.

However, Spiritualism is not content merely to enter into relations with the afterlife; it aspires to be the universal religion of the future—the religion, that is, of the “third epoch of the world”—and specifically a religion upon which Christians of all denominations, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and even atheists who believe in nothing could all agree. According to Davis and Kardec—the two prophets of this new religion—it affirms the existence of God; yet this God is identified with the world itself, just as in pantheism. Christ is regarded merely as a perfect medium and one of the higher spirits which—as divine emanations—enter into human bodies in order to attain their own perfection.

Consequently, Spiritism rejects Christian dogmas—such as original sin, the Incarnation, the Redemption, eternal punishment, and the resurrection of the body (84)—as well as the divine nature of the Church; in doing so, it declares war on Christianity, for it aspires to become the universal church of the world, wherein mediums are to exercise the priesthood, and the sole form of worship is to be the veneration of spirits.

It is, therefore, anti-religious; it is simultaneously anti-ethical, insofar as it negates free will and rejects the distinction between good and evil; and it is likewise anti-social, for it seeks to construct a new socialist state upon the foundations of communism—an ideology with which it readily fraternizes (85).

Today, spiritualism has passed its zenith; nevertheless, in many countries, it still possesses its temples, its missionaries, its schools, and its congresses (86). At one of these congresses—in the year 1900—Pastor Beversluis boldly declared that Christianity would reach its fulfillment through spiritualism, and that in this new religion there would be neither priests, nor denominationalism, nor a dogmatic system, nor coercion of conscience, but rather that it would be a Christianity purified and simplified.

According to the renowned spiritualist Mary Karadja—author of the work *Phénomènes spirites et vues spiritualistes*—all religions are like windows in a vast building, through which humanity gazes upon one and the same sun, quarreling amongst itself over which window admits the true light, while spiritualism tears down the wall separating the individual windows.

Footnotes

73. Read also by this author: *Masonry: Its Principles, Aims, Origins, Organization, Ritual, and Operations*. Kraków, 4th Edition, 1914–1917.

74. Read ‎Henr. ‎Delassus ‎La ‎conjuration ‎antichretienne ‎T.‎ ‎II.‎ ‎page 663 ‎sq.

75. In Germany, this association is called the *Gesellschaft für ethische Kultur*, and its organ is the journal *Ethische Kultur*.

76. This union was supposed to play an outstanding role in the university riots in Krakow in 1911.

77. The spirit of this movement began to infiltrate the Catholic youth association known as *Le Sillon*; consequently, Pius X was compelled to speak out against it in a letter addressed to the French bishops on August 25, 1910.

78. Theodor Reinach—a Jew and a Freemason—is particularly active in the effort to establish a new universal religion, aided by M. Leroy and Miss Dick May, the founder of the “Practical School of Higher Social Studies.” It was through his efforts that the “Congress of Religious Progress” was held in Paris in 1913.

79. A “Congress of Religions” was held in Chicago on the occasion of the World’s Fair. “Congresses of Religious Progress”—or of “Progressive Theology” and “Progressive Religion”—took place in Berlin in 1911 and in Paris in 1913. They adopted a hostile stance toward Catholicism; nevertheless, they serve as a testament to the fact that many educated minds are grappling with the subject of religion, seeking—albeit erroneously—a way out of the dark labyrinth of unbelief.

80. First, 12-year-old Katarzyna and 14-year-old Małgorzata—daughters of the Methodist Fox from Hydesville—allegedly heard knocking and responses from a spirit; this spirit was said to be a peddler who had been murdered in the house and buried in the cellar.

81. Fechner (a physiologist), Weber (a physicist), Schiaparelli and Flammarion (astronomers), Aksakov (a member of the Russian Council of State), and others also came forward in defense of spiritualism.

82. It requires no proof that there is absolutely no resemblance between Christian miracles and spiritualist phenomena, nor between the Saints of the Catholic Church and—that is to say—mediums. Ochorowicz (d. 1917) explained the phenomena of “medianism” by means of so-called *elekinesis*—that is, the movement of distant objects by an ethereal body (also referred to as the astral or dynamic body), which is capable of detaching itself partially, or even entirely, from the physical body. (Cf. *Przegląd Powszechny*, 1898, Vol. LVIII, p. 170).

83. Such as, for instance, Elington, Davenport, Bastian Bouguet, Pinkert, Firman, Madame Espérance, Florence Cook, Anna Stewart, Helena Smith, Anna Rothe, Eusapia Palladino, Madame Wriedt in Christiania in 1912, and so on. In the case of Anna Rothe, for example, it was established on March 1, 1902, in Berlin, that the flowers she supposedly received from spirits were actually being skillfully extracted from the folds of her skirt.

84. According to spiritualists, man possesses a dual body—namely, a material one and an ethereal, “astral” one—which does not undergo decay after death and can even detach itself from the material body during one’s lifetime.

85. All this information is drawn from the work by the same author titled *Pastoral Medicine* (2nd ed., Lwów 1907), Chapter XII: “The Pastor in the Face of Spiritism.”

86. The Congress of 1889 took place in Paris, in the hall of the Masonic Grand Orient. See H. Delassus, *La conjuration antichrétienne*, Vol. II, Chap. LI.

XI. Closely akin to Spiritualism and Buddhism is the fashionable religion of the so-called Theosophists, founded by Colonel Olcott in New York. It was he who, in 1875, established the association of “Theosophists” in order to propagate—through its agency—the “brotherhood of humanity,” that is, the union of people regardless of their race, religion, or nationality; thus, its aims were those also proclaimed by Freemasonry. A secondary objective of the Theosophists was to be the study of Aryan literatures—and particularly of Indian philosophy as contained in the Vedas and other scriptures—as well as the investigation of hitherto secret laws of nature and the psychic faculties of man; conversely, they were expressly forbidden from engaging in “religious intolerance” or “meddling in politics or social conflicts.” The primary theater of their operations was to be pre-Gangetic India (87); and it was there—at the Villa Adyar, owned by Olcott (88)— The first congresses of the “Theosophists” association took place there—an organization that, as early as 1889, numbered one hundred and thirty-two branches (89).

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, a Russian woman († 1891) (90), contributed greatly to the expansion of these branches; alongside her, the movement was propagated by the preacher Leadbeater, General Morgan, and Annie Besant in England; Pascal and Pierre Loti in France; Karl Bleibtreu in Germany; Damodar Bavanishangar and Subba Rao in India; and others. This sect, aiming to bring about a brotherhood of all religions, rejects Christian dogmas and regards Christ the Lord merely as a great sage, on par with Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Muhammad. Furthermore, it preaches pantheism, metempsychosis, and reincarnation, as well as a belief in new spiritual senses within man and in so-called astral bodies—the potential... ...communion with the dead and a return to Nirvana (91). Currently, two distinct currents have emerged within this sect: the first is represented by Annie Besant—an Irishwoman, a fierce adversary of Christianity, yet an ardent admirer of Buddhism and Indian occultism—whose headquarters are located in Adyar, but who also maintains numerous Theosophical associations elsewhere, as well as a separate “Indian Seminary” in Paris (92); the second is represented by the German apostate priest Steiner, who aligns himself more closely with the Modernists and liberal Protestants (93). Theosophists boast of possessing a secret knowledge that leads to true religion—claiming, moreover, that they are capable of unlocking new powers within the human being and bringing happiness to all of humanity. Who, in this context, is not reminded of Satan’s promise: “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5)?

XII. Martinism owes its origins to Count Louis Claude de Saint-Martin (b. 1743), a disciple of the Portuguese Jew Martinez Paschalis (d. 1779), who established lodges in France during the 18th century. His system—which incorporated the errors of the Neoplatonists, Manichaeans, and pseudo-mystics, as well as those of the Jewish Kabbalah—was revived and expanded in 1889 by Dr. Papus (whose real name was Dr. Encausse), the founder of the journal *Hiram* and the creator of the *Institut des Hautes Études Hermétiques* in Paris. Affiliated with this organization—which comprises three degrees—is an association known as the *Frères Rosicruciens de la Rosace* (Rose-Croix), whose official organ is the monthly journal *Les Entretiens Idéalistes*. Furthermore, there exist in Paris and elsewhere separate groups of enthusiasts of magic and the occult sciences (hence the name “occultists”), operating under the name *Groupe Indépendant d’Études Ésotériques*. ...propagating the idea that all religions—the Catholic faith not excepted—possess an esoteric doctrine inaccessible to the uninitiated.

XIII. Theosophy, Martinism, and occultism are merely various forms of the ancient Gnosis, which holds two principal dogmas: namely, belief in the emanation of spirits—in opposition to belief in God the Creator—and salvation through knowledge, in opposition to salvation through living faith.

The religion of modern Gnostics—introduced into France in 1890 by Jules Doinel as the *Église Gnostique de France*—possesses a hierarchical organization composed of initiated adepts (or “pneumatics”), “deacons,” “bishops,” and a “patriarch,” who serves as the visible head of the Gnostic Church, while its invisible head is “Celestial Sophia” (Wisdom)—that is, Lucifer himself. Its external worship bears many similarities to the Catholic rite; on the other hand, a connection exists between this sect and Freemasonry (94).

Footnotes

87. According to the fanciful tales of the Theosophists, a “secret science” was practiced in Tibet by the “Himalayan Brothers,” and it was from them that the Russian woman Blavatsky allegedly acquired this knowledge. Theosophists ardently champion Buddhism, while they, in turn, are supported by Freemasonry (cf. Fr. Taczak, loc. cit., pp. 7 et seq.).

88. In the meeting hall hang portraits of the principal founders of religions—the deity Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, and Jesus Christ—yet there is no image of Muhammad, as Muslims protested against it.

89. Namely, 107 in India, 8 in Europe, 15 in the Americas, and in Africa and Australia.

90. Her magnum opus was published under the title *The Secret Doctrine*. The renowned Russian writer Vsevolod Solovyov—who knew the “Theosophist” Blavatsky very well—recounts that this adventuress’s primary strength lay in her brazenness and her contempt for humanity. “The simpler and cruder a so-called phenomenon is,” she once told him, “the more likely it is to succeed and the stronger an impression it will make. The vast majority of people—those who consider themselves highly learned and immensely wise—are, in fact, monumental fools. Oh, if only you knew what ‘lions’ and ‘eagles’ in various lands have, at the sound of my whistle, transformed themselves into donkeys! All I had to do was give a whistle, and they would immediately—and obediently—begin flapping their enormous ears.” (Teodor Jeske-Choiński: *In Pursuit of Truth*, Series Five, p. 88).

91. See ‎Civita ‎cattolica.‎ ‎Anno‎ ‎63‎ ‎(1912)‎ ‎vol.‎ ‎1

92. The teachings of the Theosophists are set forth in America in a catechism published in 1882 by H. Olcott in Paris; in the work by Karl Bleibtreu titled *Blavatzky und die Geheimlehre* (Berlin, 1904); in numerous works by Annie Besant; as well as in periodicals such as *Petit Theosophe* and *Graal* (in Paris), *Ultra* (in Rome), *The Theosophist* (in America), *Die Sphinx* (in Berlin), and others.

93. Anna Besant, née Wood, was the wife of the Reverend Franck Besant; however, due to her attacks against the Bible, she was compelled to leave him. Subsequently, she joined the socialists, and—after reading Blavatsky’s book *The Secret Doctrine*—she became an ardent Theosophist. Recently, she put forward the claim that a certain Indian boy—whom she had acquired from his father—was the incarnate deity Krishna, under the name Krishnamurti. Yet she suffered a humiliating setback when the English courts—finding her associate, Leadbeater (who was tasked with raising this future Krishna alongside other youths), guilty of gross immorality—sentenced him to punishment and returned the boy to his father (*L’ Univers*, June 10, 1913).

94. The organs of the modern Gnostics in Paris are the journals *La Gnose* and *Le Réveil gnostique* (cf. H. Delassus, *loc. cit.*, Chap. L). A specious Gnostic creed was set forth by Madame Joanna Beauchamp—founder of a group titled the *Alliance spiritualiste*—in a small volume titled *Études intuitives*. She invokes the “intuitive” philosophy of Bergson, an admirer of Plotinus and other Neoplatonists.

Christian Science—or “Christ’s Knowledge”—also ranks among the newer religions with a pseudo-mystical orientation. Its founder was Mrs. Eddy—née Baker (b. 1821, d. 1910)—a woman prone to religious reveries and an adherent of spiritualism who, on the basis of “revelations” allegedly received from on high, proclaimed a new gospel to the world; subsequently, having published her “holy book” in 1872 under the title *Science and Health*, she established a new religious association in Boston (the Church of Christian Scientists). Following in the footsteps of Dr. Quimby, she asserted that illnesses could be eradicated—just as in the time of Christ—through the influence of the mind and through prayer, for they must yield to the power of the Divine Being. Curiously, this superstitious belief in healing through prayer (known in German as *Gesundbeten*) soon spread throughout the Protestant societies of America and Europe. ...even though no effects of it were anywhere to be seen. As for the doctrinal aspect, Mrs. Eddy taught that God is in all things (and thus, pantheism); that Christ is a “universal spirit and a great magical agent”; and that man is an emanation of God (Gnosticism)—while simultaneously denying the personality of God, Satan, and man. Regarding its organization, Christian Science has no pastors, but only readers; and its main center is located in London (96).

Is there, in civilized society today, any religion in which Satan receives public worship? Some writers claim that the originator of the cult of Lucifer—or so-called Palladism—was Albert Pike, the Grand Master of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in Charleston, North America (d. 1891). Indeed, revelations were even published in print by Miss Diana Vaughan, who allegedly held a high office within Palladian Freemasonry; and from these revelations, it would appear that Masons belonging to Palladian lodges render public worship to Satan—whom they call Lucifer or Excelsior—during their meetings; furthermore, that during the so-called “White Mass,” they desecrate consecrated Hosts—which depraved women bring from churches—and commit various other abominations.

Leon Taxil—a supposedly converted Mason (d. 1907)—also spoke of the worship of Satan (Bitru) within Masonic lodges; indeed, these issues were the subject of lively debate at the anti-Masonic congress held in Trent in 1896. However, it subsequently emerged that the revelations attributed to the alleged “Miss Vaughan” were a fabrication, and that Leon Taxil was a scoundrel who had deliberately leveled various accusations against the Masons only to later publicly mock the gullibility of Catholics.

On the other hand, it is certain that Freemasons, in their symbolism, speak with reverence of Eblis or Lucifer. Satan is also extolled by renowned writers: Renan, Michelet, Quinet, and—among the more modern ones—Giosuè Carducci (a 33rd-degree Mason), Rapisardi, Immermann, Lenau, Henff, Emanuel Kiel, Croley, Southey, Béranger, Giovanici, Baudelaire, Prati, Kasprowicz, and others. There were also public manifestations of this cult. For instance, Carducci’s hymn in honor of Satan was sung at the Alfieri Theatre in Turin and at the Umberto Theatre in Rome (in 1882), as well as during the unveiling of the Garibaldi monument in 1893. Furthermore, banners bearing the image of Satan were carried in public processions—such as those in Rome in 1882 and 1889—to such an extent that even Pope Leo XIII, during the consistory of June 30, 1889, deemed it necessary to condemn the impiety of the adherents of Satanism (96).

Let us now turn to the monotheistic religions, which adopt as their fundamental dogma the belief in one God.

XIV. At the lowest rung stands the Muslim religion (97). Its founder was Mohammed (born in 571—or perhaps 570—and died in 632), a man by nature prone to hallucinations and fanaticism—whether as an epileptic or a hysteric—yet who was, moreover, cunning, cruel, and lascivious (98). Having convinced both himself and others of his prophetic calling—and of his frequent conversations with the “Archangel Gabriel”—he resolved to reconcile the religion of the Arabs (which was steeped in idolatry) with both Judaism and Christianity, doing so against the backdrop of monotheism—that is, the belief in one God. He had, however, acquired his knowledge of Christianity from impure sources: specifically, from the accounts of various sectarians. And indeed, he created a monstrous amalgam, founded upon alleged divine revelations—revelations that were later transcribed into the “holy” book known as the Al-Koran (99). This religion—known as Islam, that is, submission to God—was propagated by Mohammed not only by the word but also by the sword; indeed, at the head of bands of brigands hungry for plunder, he captured Mecca in the year 630—a city which, with its temple, the “Kaaba,” became a holy city for the Muslim world. Further conquests were carried out by the fanatical hosts of the Caliphs, during which the Catholic Church suffered immense losses, while the conversion of Muslims was forbidden under penalty of death. Islam possesses, in essence, only two dogmas, which read as follows: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” Muhammad rejected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because he held a misconception regarding it—namely, that the Trinity consisted of the Father, the Son, and Mary, and that the Father had begotten the Son in a human manner. In Christ, he recognized only a prophet—one greater than the others, yet lesser than Muhammad; he was born of the “pure and righteous” (*siddiq*) Virgin Mary and will one day return to Earth to defeat Dajjal (the Antichrist). Regarding himself, Muhammad claimed to be the supreme prophet, a privileged messenger, and God’s most cherished confidant, for he had received the entire Book from God, whereas other prophets had come to know only a portion of it.

Muslims further believe in the existence of angels and evil spirits (100), in Divine judgment, in blind fate, and in Heaven and Hell; yet these beliefs, grounded in the Quran, are replete with absurd fables, while their ethical precepts are characterized by a narrow formalism.

Moral obligations include: prayer performed five times daily (that is, the recitation of specific formulas), daily ritual ablutions, fasting throughout the entire month of Ramadan (though only during the day, as they feast at night), almsgiving—specifically a tax for the poor—and, at least once in a lifetime, a pilgrimage to Mecca; moreover, a single holy war waged against the enemies of Islam is deemed to possess immense merit (101). Prohibitions include the ban on all intoxicating beverages, while circumcision is counted among their religious ceremonies.

Upon critically evaluating Islam, we arrive at the conviction that it is not a religion in the proper sense of the word, but rather a dry and barren deism; for it lacks a distinct priesthood (that is to say, imams do not constitute a priestly caste), it lacks a supreme teaching authority, and it lacks sacrifices and public divine worship—save for communal prayer and the reading of the Quran.

Nevertheless, Islam has permeated every sphere of life, and the Quran has become for Muslims a religious, moral, social, and political code—thereby stifling all progress. Since Muhammad proclaimed himself the highest and final of the prophets and messengers of God, his followers regard themselves as privileged above all other nations; they not only look down upon them but hold them in contempt—a mindset that renders the conversion of Muslims to the Christian faith exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, according to their creed, the Quran encompasses all truth and all wisdom regarding every aspect of life—whether individual, familial, or social—a belief that instills in the devotees of the “Prophet” spiritual arrogance, an aversion to Christian culture, and—not infrequently—a savage and cruel fanaticism (102). Moreover, Islam brings in its wake a fusion... ...of spiritual authority with secular power, absolute despotism, and superficial legalism; while in social relations—slavery, polygamy, divorce, the confinement of women within the harem, and moral corruption (103).

Wherever the Quran reigns, there can be no question of the advancement of education; and if—according to the testimony of history—Arab civilization under the Umayyads and Abbasids reached greater heights, this must be attributed primarily to the conquered Christian peoples, as well as to the Persians and Jews. It is certain only that the Arabs served, to some extent, as intermediaries between ancient Greek and medieval culture—just as it is certain that they distinguished themselves in the fields of the physical sciences and so-called Moorish architecture. Those who practiced so-called Arabic philosophy—with the exception of one individual named Alhendi—belonged to other nationalities. Moreover, the Quran is, in principle, opposed to scientific inquiry.

What, then, contributed to the expansion of Islam? Foremost was the exceedingly simple and accommodating structure of this religion—tailored to the low intellectual capacity and sensual desires inherent in human nature—as well as a fanatical zeal for “holy war,” intensified by the hope of rich spoils on earth and carnal pleasures in heaven. On the other hand, a contributing factor was the degeneration of Christian peoples, who in the East had succumbed to heresies or schisms. Today, however, that former zeal is to be found, perhaps, only among the savage hordes of Arabia and Africa; it is, therefore, no wonder that Turkey suffered such crushing defeats in its wars against Italy (over Tripoli), against the Balkan states (1912–1913), and against the Allied coalition (1914–1918). The efforts undertaken to reawaken this ancient Muslim fanaticism proved unsuccessful. ...occurred—albeit for a brief period—around the year 1883 in East Africa, when a new “prophet,” Mohammed Ahmed—bearing the epithet *Mahdi* (d. 1885)—appeared upon the scene. However, as early as 1898, the English General Kitchener utterly routed the dervish hordes.

In more recent times, a Pan-Islamic movement has been stirring within Muslim society; this movement seeks to modernize Islam—that is, to adapt the teachings of Mohammed to the concepts of modern culture—and to awaken the spirit of nationalism among Muslims of various nations, thereby fostering a closer unity. In furtherance of this aim, public journals in Constantinople, India, and Egypt have issued calls for cultural progress and the cultivation of the sciences—efforts which have subsequently led to the establishment of new schools in Bombay, Calcutta, Aligarh (104), and elsewhere.

As for religious propaganda, missionaries of modern pan-Islamism stick to a different method instead of converting pagans in Africa or elsewhere by force, act slowly and carefully, by way of accommodation, not by demanding renunciation of old beliefs. This is what makes Islam in India “Abyssinia” and “among” the blacks “Africa” is spreading more and more, so much so that it now has less ‎more ‎up to ‎220 million ‎followers ‎and ‎even ‎among Christians ‎is recruiting proselytes. Masonic lodges are being formed in the larger cities of Turkey and the East Indies (105), to which Muslims are breaking up. With the Koran, they are coming in greater and greater numbers. From the Masonic lodges in Salonica, and from the mostly Jewish lodges, the password for the revolution that overthrew the throne of Abdul Hamid in 1908 and brought him to the top The Young Turks’ party. The rule of these progressives and most of them belong to Freemasonry. It was beneficial for Christians.

In 1914, Türkiye, having sided with Austria and Germany, declared war on Russia. ‎France ‎and ‎England. ‎In November of the same year, Sultan Mohammed, as the successor of the Caliphs, announced the so-called fatwa (106), calling on the Muslim world to launch “seir”, i.e. “jihad”. This is a holy war. But he has not been listened to; what’s more, in Egypt Hussein Kemal he proclaimed himself sultan under the protectorate of England (1914), and emir in July 1916 Meccan Hussein ibn Ali caused an uprising in Arabia with English money and established an independent Arab state. In December 1917, the English army even occupied Jaffa and Jerusalem, and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was preparing for the partial partition of Turkey.

Footnotes

95. Cf. *Ateneum Kapłańskie*, Issue 5, 1913, p. 443.

96. Read the same author: *Masonry*, 4th ed., Chap. II, p. 46.

97. Cf. Rev. Dr. Józef Pelczar, *The Holy Land and Islam*, Lwów 1875, Part Two.

98. Over the course of his life, he had 11 wives—or, according to others, as many as 14—and several female slaves.

99. The Quran (meaning “recitation” or “proclamation”) consists of 114 Surahs (chapters), which were transcribed during the lifetime of Muhammad; however, it was not until the Caliph Uthman—circa 653 AD—that a standardized text was commissioned. The content of this book comprises—alongside legends and religious invocations—banal apostrophes, outbursts of anger, attacks on other religions, and the extolling of sensuality and fanaticism (Schanz, *loc. cit.*, Vol. V, 12). The commentary on the Quran, known as the Sunnah, contains eyewitness accounts concerning the Prophet—though these are not universally accepted; consequently, Muslims are divided into Sunnis (Turks and Arabs) and Shiites—or opponents of the Sunnah—(Persians and Indians), who adhere to their own distinct traditions.

100. Among Muslims, there is also a cult of saints (wali), although the Quran does not recognize it at all and explicitly excludes images or statues.

101. Sura‎ ‎8‎ ‎nakazuje‎ ‎tępić‎ ‎chrześcijan,‎ ‎acz‎ ‎Mohammed‎ ‎z‎ ‎początku okazywał‎ ‎się‎ ‎dla‎ ‎nich‎ ‎życzliwym,‎ ‎by‎ ‎ich‎ ‎pozyskać.

102. This explains the massacres of Christians in Greece and Spain, or of the Armenians and Maronites.

103. Cardinal Massaia—author of the work titled *33 Years in Africa*—who, as a long-serving missionary of the Capuchin Order, came to know Muslim society intimately, made the following observation regarding African Muslims: “In my missionary travels, I invariably encountered among Muslims greater immorality and greater depravity than among pagans. This is a characteristic feature of Islam; by it, one can recognize it anywhere.”

104. It was founded by the chief leader of Pan-Islamism, Sayyad Ahmad Khan.

105. Cf. the same author, *Masonry*, 4th ed., Kraków 1914, p. 364.

106. It was also signed by the Sheikh ul-Islam—that is, the head of the Muslim clergy in Constantinople.

XV. The Jewish religion stands incomparably higher than Islam, for it took its origin from Divine revelation and remained under the guardianship of God’s messengers—the Patriarchs and Prophets—and possessed sacred books written under direct Divine inspiration (107). Destined to serve, as it were, as a vestibule for a perfect, immutable, and universal religion, it became the heritage of the Chosen People—a people who, amidst the Gentiles, were to be the heralds of revealed truth and the Messianic promise, and from whom the promised Redeemer of the world was also to come forth.

Yet even the people of Israel frequently fell into idolatry; Yet, upon returning from the Babylonian captivity, the people allowed themselves to be led astray by their priests and doctors of the law, who corrupted the spirit of God’s Law and distorted the Messianic concept, teaching that traditions and ceremonies took precedence over the precepts of Holy Scripture regarding love and justice—and, furthermore, that the Messiah would come as a mighty king to liberate the Jews from the foreign yoke and secure for them dominion over the world. These prejudices—coupled with the ambition and egoism of the priests—resulted in the fact that when the God-Man came to earth as Master, Priest, and Savior, the greater part of the Jewish people—led by the Sanhedrin (the supreme council), the Pharisees, and the Sadducees—not only rejected Him but delivered Him up to death on the cross: a death which, in that very act, gave life to the world.

On Calvary, the work of Divine Mercy was fulfilled; yet, at the same time, the sentence of Divine Justice was pronounced. For scarcely thirty-seven years had elapsed since those terrible cries—”Crucify Him! His blood be upon us and upon our children!”—when the Roman commander Titus, fulfilling Christ’s prophecy, destroyed Jerusalem and burned its Temple in the year 70 A.D. (108). And fifty-five years later, one of his successors—Emperor Hadrian—after quelling the bloody revolt of Bar Kokhba and Rabbi Akiva, erected a new city upon the ruins of Jerusalem—Aelia Capitolina—and scattered the Jewish people throughout the entire Roman Empire (109).

From that time forth, this people has possessed neither temple, nor priesthood, nor sacrifice, nor homeland; thus, strictly speaking, they ought not to live—and yet they cannot die, for God’s will has condemned them to wander among the nations, bearing upon their weary shoulders the sacred books of the Old Covenant, so that all might be convinced that the prophecies contained therein have been fulfilled in Christ. At the head of Israel, in place of priests, now stand teachers (rabbis)—men who have disfigured the Law of Moses even more grievously than the Pharisees, for alongside the Bible (the *Torah shebiktav*—that is, the Written Law) they have placed the Kabbalah and the Talmud, treating them as nearly equal in authority.

Kabbalah (”received knowledge”) is a mystical tradition containing explanations of the hidden meaning of sacred texts—specifically, teachings concerning Divine perfection, the creation of the worlds, the fall of spirits and humanity, the pre-existence of souls and metempsychosis, the Messiah, the Last Judgment, and the return of souls to the Divine bosom; and, finally, the symbolism of numbers and letters. According to rabbinical tradition, its origins are variously traced to Adam, Abraham, or Moses; yet, in reality, it emerged from the writings of Rabbi Ben Akiba (the *Sefer Yetzirah*) and Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai (the *Sefer HaZohar*), as well as from the commentaries of later rabbis.

In the teachings of Kabbalah, one can discern the influence of Pythagoras and Plato, as well as that of the Neoplatonists and Gnostics—and particularly the Valentinians—who refined the system of emanation. It was precisely this aspect that led certain medieval scholars—most notably Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola—to attach an exaggerated importance to it, despite the fact that so-called “Practical Kabbalah” is rife with absurd superstitions; for it imbues letters, words, and numbers with symbolic significance, and even attributes to them the power to conjure up magical and miraculous phenomena (110).

A word of this nature is held to be, in particular, Yahweh (Jehovah)—that is, the “Hidden Name” (*Shem HaMephorash*). A scurrilous Jewish text titled *Toledot Yeshu* even asserts that Jesus Christ performed His miracles by means of this very name, which He allegedly stole from the Temple in Jerusalem (!).

The Talmud (that is, “learning”) denotes a book containing the treasures of Jewish wisdom, and consisting of two parts. The first part—the Mishnah (Sepher Mishnayoth, or “secondary law”)—is an orally transmitted body of teaching, the custodian of which was the “Great Synagogue,” and which was committed to writing by rabbis up to the time of Rabbi Judah (Yehuda Rabbenu HaKadosh), the final author of the Mishnah (circa 217 AD). The second part consists of the Gemara—meaning “completion” or a supplement to the Mishnah; It originates from Palestinian and Babylonian Jewish scholars (the Amoraim) of the 3rd through 5th centuries CE; hence, a distinction is made between the Palestinian and Babylonian Gemara. Subsequently, explanations and commentaries (Midrashim) were compiled—pertaining both to the Mishnah (Baraitot) and to the Gemara (Tosafot). The Talmud itself is divided into six parts (Shishah Sedarim); each part is subdivided into books and treatises (Massekhtot), and the books, in turn, into chapters (Peraqim).

In the Talmud—and especially in those passages known as *Halakha*—one finds, here and there, apt explanations of the Mosaic Law; yet, on the other hand, there are present therein (particularly in those passages known as *Haggada*) assertions that run counter to sound reason, to the holiness of God, or to natural law; there are indecent fables, or tales extolling superstition and sorcery; there are anthropomorphisms in the doctrine concerning God—and even precise measurements of the Lord God’s physical form (His beard alone, for instance, being 11,500 miles long); there are alluring promises regarding the advent of the Messiah and the future dominion of the Jews over the world; and there are vile invectives directed against Christians and against Christ the Lord—whom the Talmud simply labels the son of a harlot (Stada), a fool, a madman, an idolater, or, alternatively, a sorcerer and a deceiver—while Christians themselves are referred to as worshippers... ...idolatry, sons of the devil, beasts, etc.—and hence the call to shun them and even to harm them.

It is also no wonder that Popes Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Julius III, Paul IV Pius V, Clement VIII, Alexander VII, Benedict XIV condemned the Talmud in the a century 16th century ordered him to be put on the Index; and Protestants can find out what they think about him. from the writings of Luther, especially from the writings of Vom, Schem, Hamforas, where he calls the Jews “little ones” devils”, as well as from the serious work of Eisenmenger (Das neuentdeckte Judenthum), published in In 1711, on the orders of the Prussian king, Frederick I.

The Jews themselves, at the Piotrków Congress in 1631, decided to remove them from the new editions. Places of the Talmud that are offensive to Christ, the Lord, and Christians, which are still in the edition Venetian from 1520 and Amsterdam from 1648.

Today’s progressive Jews, led by the Alliance of Israel, reject the Talmud as a whole, or they demand that it be reformed; because it is really necessary to renounce reason and conscience in order to recognize it as a holy and binding book. But the dark and fanatical Jewish crowd holds on ‎blindly‎ ‎Talmud‎! (112), an introduction to religion, soulless formalism, and awaits the Messiah, even though he experienced disappointment (113).

Progressive Jews are infected for the most part with religious indifferentism and neither. they believe; for them, the law is non-denominationalism, the temple, the stock exchange, the law, self-interest, the messiah golden calf. There are even free-thinking rabbis who strive to modernize Judaism, as it turned out. at the meeting held in Poznań in 1912.

In more recent times, a Zionist faction emerged among the younger generation—one that dreamed of a return to Palestine and of an independent Jewish state, yet was, at the same time, exceedingly hostile toward Christians, and particularly toward the Polish nation. Meanwhile, another segment of the Jewish population threw itself into the maelstrom of social revolution, marching beneath the red banner (in Warsaw in 1905, and in Russia in 1917). The World War of 1914–1919 contributed to the growth of the Zionist movement. Specifically, the aspiration to establish a homeland and a state for the Jewish people in Palestine manifested itself with greater intensity than ever before; serving this objective are: 1) the raising of a substantial national fund to purchase land from Turkey and to meet other needs; and 2) the colonization of Palestine, where a Jewish population of over 100,000 already resides, 3) – the revival of the Hebrew language, which has awakened from a long dormancy, such that it now serves as the language of instruction even in the gymnasium established ten years ago in Jaffa, and is slated to be introduced into the Jewish University in Jerusalem—the cornerstone for which was laid in July 1918. The expansion of the Hebrew language in Poland and Russia is hindered by the fact that a Jewish-German jargon has long since taken root there—to such an extent that, following the liberation of the Kingdom of Poland from the Russian yoke, the local Jews stubbornly demanded Jewish schools in which this jargon would serve as the language of instruction. The Warsaw Zionists acceded to this demand, subject to the stipulation that the jargon would serve as the language of instruction in elementary schools, provided that the [national] language was not present in them... ...of Hebrew. The “Society for the Promotion of Education among Russian Jews,” already established in Russia, is now founding Yiddish-language schools—in which, however, Hebrew subjects occupy a prominent place.

In early 1917, the “Union of Orthodox Jews”—that is, of faithful Jews—was established in Poland; rejecting any and all assimilation with Poles, it loudly proclaimed that it “considers Jews to be children of the eternal, immortal nation of Israel, whose national soul is solely the Mosaic Law.” During the peace negotiations of 1919, Jews sought to harm Poland in various ways and demanded an independent state in Palestine.

Everywhere, Jews greedily amass wealth and strive for influence in every sphere—seeking, through capital, stock exchanges, newspapers, academic chairs, parliaments, Masonic lodges (114), and socialist unions, to dominate the world—while simultaneously undermining Christian society; For their motto is a principle drawn from the Talmud: that “God created the world for the Jews” (115). It is precisely this solidarity—the manner in which they support one another—combined with an aversion to assimilation with those of other faiths and an innate shrewdness in exploiting every situation, that constitutes their primary strength. Moreover, they were greatly aided by the Russian Revolution—effected in March 1917—the helm of which was seized in 1918 by Jews: the Bolsheviks.

The religion of Christ forbids doing harm to Jews—and even more so, organizing pogroms against them; indeed, it commands that they be rendered whatever justice and neighborly love require. Yet, on the other hand, self-defense against them is a necessity (116), for their ranks are not devoid of unscrupulous individuals who enrich themselves through exploitation and usury, or, conversely, through... Taverns, brothels, pornographic literature, and the trafficking in human beings spread demoralization. All of them breathe a hatred—whether overt or covert—toward Christianity, a sentiment that is likewise reflected in the daily newspapers they publish. There is nothing surprising in this, for Christianity—as the religion of the Cross—remains for the Jews a perpetual stumbling block (117) and an unceasing reproach. They are further entrenched in this hatred by the terrible blasphemies and insults against Christ and His worshippers contained in certain of their books (118), as well as by the memory of wrongs—suffered here and there at the hands of Christians—whom, on the other hand, they themselves have often sorely vexed; and thus is fulfilled the prophecy of the Prophet Hosea: that Israel shall turn to the Savior only in the latter days (III, 5)—that is, before the end of the world (119).

In the nineteenth century, a relatively greater number of Jews converted to Catholicism, Protestantism, or Orthodoxy than in previous times; yet for many, the motives were base and worldly (120). All the more profound, therefore, was the impact of the conversions of such men as Herman Cohen, Francis Liebermann, Emanuel Veith, Theodore and Alphonse Ratisbonne, and Joseph and Augustine Leman—all of whom later became zealous priests and missionaries. May their example draw as many sons and daughters of Israel as possible to Christ.

Footnotes

107. This subject will be discussed in greater detail in Volume IV, *On Divine Revelation*.

108. Titus wished to save the Temple; however, contrary to his orders, a Roman soldier—having climbed onto the shoulders of his comrades—threw a burning brand through a window, thereby igniting a fire. In the year 361, Emperor Julian the Apostate, seeking to refute the prophecies of Christ, allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and authorized the rebuilding of their Temple; yet, fireballs erupting from the earth drove the builders away.

109. Cf. the same author’s *The Holy Land and Islam*.

110. That Kabbalah exerted a significant influence on the development of certain ideas and rituals of Freemasonry is acknowledged by Masonic writers themselves—such as Mackey, Pike, and others. Cf. the same author’s *Masonerya*, etc., 4th ed., Chaps. II and XXXI, Kraków 1914.

111. The information the Talmud provides regarding the Lord Jesus originates—much like the Talmud itself—from various periods and diverse authors. These are not historical records, but rather absurd fabrications, rife with malice. Originally, during the era of the creators of the Mishnah—the so-called Tannaim—many of these malicious anecdotes targeted entirely different individuals; it was only the later Amoraim and Savoraim—the authors of the Gemara—who wickedly misapplied them to Christ the Lord (cf. Tosefta, *Shabbat* 11:15; Palestinian Talmud, *Shabbat* 12:4; and Babylonian Talmud, *Shabbat* 104b). The primary target of the malice within most of these fabrications is the supernatural origin of Christ the Lord in the flesh—specifically, His conception without the participation of an earthly father; for, by refusing to acknowledge this supernatural origin of the Lord Jesus, the rabbis portray Him as an illegitimate son. ...of Pandera (Pantea, Pandera) and of the mother—who is at one moment called Stada, and at another Marga Megaddela (Magdalene?)—and who is betrothed now to Stada, and then again to Pappos ben Yehuda (cf. Bab. *Shabbat* 104b, *Yoma* 66b, *Sanhedrin* 67a, *Gittin* 90a–b; *Tosefta* *Sotah* 5:9; *Chullin* 2:22, 23, 24; *Mishnah* *Yevamot* 4:11; Pal. *Kilayim* 41d, *Avodah Zarah* 40d, *Shabbat* 14d). The Talmud itself abbreviates the name of the Lord Jesus (Yehoshua—Yeshua) to Yeshu (y-sh-u), which is intended to represent the initial letters of the words: *yimmach shemo u-zekhro* (”may his name and memory be blotted out”; cf. Bab. *Sanhedrin* 43a and all the passages cited above); furthermore, it travesties the word “Gospel” into the Hebrew *Awen-gilyon* (”a writing... ...of falsehood), or the writing of sin (cf. b. *Shabbat* 116a–b). The Talmud does not deny the miracles of Christ the Lord; rather, it regards them merely as sorcery—arts which the Lord Jesus allegedly learned in Egypt, where He sojourned with His teacher, Jesus ben Perachiah. He supposedly performed these alleged acts of sorcery by means of the name *Jahle*, which He had incised upon His body on the Sabbath (cf. b. *Sanhedrin* 107b, *Sotah* 47a, *Shabbat* 104b; *Tosefta Shabbat* 12:15; y. *Shabbat* 12:4). Moreover, Talmudic writings even attribute to a disciple of Christ the Lord—Jacob of Kefar Sechaniah—the power of healing through the invocation of the name of Jesus (cf. *Tosefta Chullin* 2:22–23; *Avodah Zarah* 40d; *Shabbat*; b. *Avodah Zarah* 17b). Alongside Jacob of Kefar Sechaniah (cf. (Tosefta Chullin 2:24; b. Avodah Zarah 16b, 17a; Midrash Kohelet 1:8) the Talmud lists five other disciples of the Lord Jesus, whose names are: Mattay, Nakkai, Nesser, Buni, and Todah (cf. b. Sanhedrin 43a). Furthermore, the Talmud confirms that the Lord Jesus spoke of Himself as being God, that He descended from heaven, and that He called Himself the Son of Man (cf. y. Ta’anit 2:1). The cross—upon which, according to b. Sanhedrin 43a, the Lord Jesus was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath and Passover—is referred to in Talmudic writings as the “school of the son of Pandera” (Jesus; cf. Targum Sheni to Esther 7:9). In its malicious anecdotes, the Talmud frequently identifies the Lord Jesus with Balaam (cf. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:2; b. Gittin 56b, 57a). (Sanhedrin 106a–b; Tosafot to tractate Eruvin 21b), and compares him to Haman, Doeg, and Ahithophel (cf. tractate Sanhedrin 106b; Targum Sheni to Esther 7:9). The compendium of all this nonsense—the utmost the Talmud could muster over the centuries in its malice against Christ the Lord—became the *Life of Jesus* (Toledot Yeshu), compiled somewhat later by the rabbis.

112. According to the Talmud, rabbis are the kings and fathers of the world; whenever they grasp the golden horns and proclaim upon them the glory of the Most High, He rises in heaven from the Throne of Judgment and takes His seat upon the Throne of Mercy (Cf. Schanz 1 c. IV, 228). The reverence and submission of Orthodox Jews toward their rabbis are boundless.

113. The last pseudo-messiah—a man named Sabbatai Zevi—emerged in the 17th century in Smyrna. It was foretold of him that he would remove the crown from the Sultan’s head and place it upon his own; furthermore, that upon his entry into Jerusalem, God would lower from heaven a Temple built of gold and precious stones, wherein the Messiah—acting as High Priest—would perform the sacrificial rites. At that time, many Jews—even those in Poland—were deceived. The affair ultimately ended with Sabbatai Zevi converting to Islam.

114. The penultimate Grand Master of Italian Freemasonry—and later Syndic of Rome—Ernest Nathan, is a Jew. Regarding the influence of Jews on the lodges, see *Masonry* (Chapter XXXI) by the same author.

115. See: Eisenmenger, *Das neuentdeckte Judenthum* (Königsberg, 1711) — Aug. Rohling, *Zgubne zasady talmudyzmu* [The Pernicious Principles of Talmudism] (trans. from German; Lwów, 1875) — J. P. Pranajtis, *Christianus in Talmude* (Petropolis, 1892) — Fr. Nowodworski’s *Encyklopedia kościelna* [Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia], entry: “Talmud” — F. Eger, *Masoni i Żydzi we wspólnej pracy* [Masons and Jews in Joint Endeavor] (Warsaw, 1908).

116. Here we may invoke the authority of a non-Catholic and a Freemason—namely, Goethe himself—in *Wilhelm Meister’s Wanderjahre*: “What can be said of a nation that, throughout its age-old wanderings, leaves behind nothing but traces of corruption and the exploitation of other nations? Nor can anyone be surprised that we place no trust in the Jews, and that we consider it our duty to safeguard our culture from being tainted by them.”

117. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:23

118. Namely, in the aforementioned treatises of the Talmud and in the book *Toledot Yeshu*.

119. In recent times, some Jews—particularly in America—have acknowledged the merit of Christ’s moral precepts, yet they regard Him solely as a human being. There have also been efforts to merge Judaism with Christianity; notable figures working toward this end included the Czech Jew Pick (circa 1859) and the Russian Jew Rabinovich, founder of the “New Israel” sect, which in 1885 established the “Holy Messiah Jesus Christ” synagogue in Chișinău.

120. In 1913, there were 12,428,000 Jews worldwide; in Europe alone, 9,911,200, and in Austria, 2,084,000.

The religions mentioned thus far contain a greater or lesser measure of truth, with a greater or lesser admixture of error; and where, then, is man to find the whole and perfect truth? In Christianity, which is the summation and fulfillment of Divine revelation.

Yet here a question arises: There are multiple religions that claim the name “Christian”—for there exists the Catholic Church, tracing its origins back to Christ and His Apostles; there exists the Eastern Church—separated from the Catholic Church since the 11th century—which comprises several distinct branches; and finally, dating from the 16th century, there exists Protestantism, splintered into a multitude of sects that differ from one another to varying degrees. Significant differences exist among these religions—not only regarding their hierarchical and liturgical structures but also concerning their dogmas of faith; yet, only one religion can be the true one. Which, then, is it? This question is answered, above all, by historical criticism.

The Catholic Church existed for ten centuries before the Eastern Schism occurred, and for fifteen centuries before Protestantism emerged; throughout this time, it was universally acknowledged as the Church of Christ. How, then, could it have come to pass that it suddenly ceased to be so—in the 11th century in the East, and in the 16th century in the West? Did it abandon the doctrine entrusted to it by Christ? No. Did it fundamentally alter its constitution, established by Christ? Nor that. Perhaps, then, it succumbed to a moral gangrene that penetrated to the very marrow? Not even that. Admittedly, in the 10th and 15th centuries, there was a greater degree of secularization and corruption within the clergy than at any other time—so much so that even the Holy See was occupied by certain popes unworthy of that office, such as John XII in the 10th century, Benedict IX in the 11th, or Alexander... ...in the 15th century; yet a reform soon followed—one carried out in the 11th century by Saint Gregory VII, and in the 16th by the Council of Trent. Moreover, even in those much-maligned centuries, we encounter saints, as well as no less distinguished popes and bishops. Thus, the Catholic Church in the 11th and 16th centuries did not cease to be the Church of Christ, and it remains so to this day.

Let us now turn our attention to Protestantism and Eastern Schism (121). XVI. The father of Protestantism is Martin Luther (b. 1483 – d. 1546)—a man of talent and eloquence, yet violent and arrogant, who styled himself the “doctor above all doctors”—and one so great, indeed, that before him “a thousand Cyprians and a thousand Augustines” must yield (122). Moreover, he was a man so sensual that, having shamelessly trampled upon the vow of celibacy, he took a runaway nun as his wife; furthermore, in his table conversations (*Tischreden*), he would utter the most obscene jests (123). His life’s motto was the maxim: *Wer liebt nicht Wein, Weib und Gesang, der ist ein Narr sein Leben lang, und Narren sind wir nicht* (”He who loves not wine, women, and song is a fool his whole life long—and fools we are not.”); and the extent of his reverence for Divine Law may be gauged by the fact that he granted Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, permission to take a second wife while his first was still alive. “so as to thereby multiply the glory of God,” as well as “out of concern for the well-being of his body and soul.”

Seeking to silence the pangs of conscience—having become a monk and a priest without a true vocation—he adopted a convenient theory regarding the total corruption of human nature (whereby man, succumbing to concupiscence, can desire and do only evil) and the doctrine of external justification through faith in the Savior apart from good works—ideas he derived from the writings of Ockham and certain pseudo-mystics of the 14th and 15th centuries (124); however, he only came forward publicly when the preaching of the plenary indulgence for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome was entrusted to the Dominicans rather than the Augustinians. Condemned by the Holy See, he rejected the authority and hierarchy of the Church, the visible priesthood, the Holy Mass, the veneration of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, the Holy Sacraments (except for two, or strictly speaking, only one) (125), indulgences, and Purgatory. ...prayers for the dead, clerical celibacy, religious orders, fasting, and good works (”as possessing no supernatural merit”), and instead proclaimed the Bible as the sole source of faith—which everyone was to discover in that book through “free inquiry”—and began to form religious communities. Indeed, one must close one’s eyes to the testimony of history to see Luther as a “man of God” and a “religious reformer” (126).

In Switzerland, the “new Gospel” was propagated by Huldrych Zwingli (born 1484, died 1531)—a dissolute priest and a humanist rather than a theologian—who, by his own admission, maintained sinful relations with a public prostitute. His associate, Ludwig Hetzer, was beheaded for various offenses. It was these “apostles” who first carried out a “Church reform” in Zurich in the spirit of Luther, though with a more rationalist bent (127). The apostates Capito (Koepflin), Oecolampadius (Hausschein), and Bullinger in Basel, as well as Farel and Viret in Lausanne, operated in the same spirit.

England was torn away from the Church and the true faith by the cruel tyrant Henry VIII (died 1547) after Pope Clement VII refused to annul his legitimate marriage to Catherine of Aragon or sanction an adulterous union with Anne Boleyn. Nevertheless, Henry VIII took Anne as his wife and declared himself head of the English Church, sending those who resisted royal supremacy—among them Cardinal Fisher and Chancellor More—to the scaffold. What Henry VIII began was completed by his and Anne Boleyn’s daughter Elizabeth—ostensibly a virgin, yet licentious and bloodthirsty 1); for it was she who ordered the beheading of the innocent Mary Stuart (1587) and the execution of many Catholic priests and laypeople, having first subjected them to terrible tortures (129).

In terms of personal conduct, John Calvin (1509–1564)—who gained the greatest number of followers in France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands—stood above these other pseudo-reformers; yet he was marred by other vices, such as arrogance, greed, and cruelty. It is well known, after all, that on his orders Michael Servetus—himself a heretic—was burned at the stake for holding a different view of the Holy Trinity, and that in Geneva alone, between 1542 and 1546, fifty-eight death sentences were carried out at his command for religious reasons. His doctrine of absolute predestination—the eternal condemnation of people regardless of their deeds—was also appalling. The historian Kolb rightly observed that “Calvin wanted to turn the entire earth into a gloomy and cold penitential institution.” Followers... They were always driven by religious fanaticism—manifested in the murders of Catholics in France and the Netherlands (130).

A lack of faith and conscience, fierce hatred of the Church, and moral corruption—particularly the desire to abandon celibacy and secure a lucrative position—characterized the propagators of Protestantism in other countries as well; such figures included, for instance, John Knox in Scotland; Laurentius Anderson and the Paterson brothers in Sweden; Hans Tausen in Denmark; Mátyás Dévai in Hungary; Georg von Polenz, Eberhard von Queis, Brisman, and Grand Master Albrecht in Prussia; and Seklucjan, Lismanin, Kulwa, Stankar, Occhini, Jan Łaski, Frycz Modrzewski, and Lelio and Fausto Sozzini in Poland (131).

Could Divine Providence truly have chosen such men to renew Its Church?

But why did Protestantism spread so rapidly throughout the world? On the one hand, the way was paved for it by the ecclesiastical turmoil and sects of the 15th century, the weakening of papal authority, the negligence and secularization of certain bishops, the writings of humanists imbued with a pagan spirit—such as Ulrich von Hutten—the hatred of the depraved knighthood toward the clergy, the clergy’s own resentment of the Holy See due to numerous reservations, annates, and other fees, the laxity of morals in the cities, and the moral failings of certain clergy, both secular and religious; on the other hand, people who wished to live without restraint yet still possess a religion were drawn to this doctrine, which removed everything unpleasant to corrupt human nature—such as obedience to spiritual authority, confession, celibacy, fasting, religious vows, the indissolubility of marriage, and so forth; while... Corrupt priests and religious found a dissolute life appealing; scholars welcomed the liberation of reason from all authority; princes and cities sought to seize ecclesiastical power (132)—along with the appropriation of so many wealthy bishoprics (133), monasteries, and benefices—while the common people were promised a “golden liberty” and the “pure Gospel” (134).

The tactic of the innovators was to portray—in an exaggerated and often untruthful light—the aberrations that had indeed crept into a certain segment of the secular and regular clergy. These aberrations arose under the influence of the feudal system, Humanism, the lack of seminaries and synods, the Western Schism of the 14th century, the revolutionary tendencies of the 15th century, the accumulation of wealth, and other detrimental factors. From this, they drew the false conclusion that the clergy—greedy for property and power—had corrupted the work of Jesus Christ and, through erroneous additions, had distorted His teaching. Consequently—as they further argued—the Catholic Church had ceased to be the Church of Christ; it was therefore necessary to return to the primitive Church, such as it existed in the first century after Christ; and Protestantism, they claimed, was precisely that reformed church (135). These falsehoods... ...modern-day Protestants find faith (136); therefore, their return to the Catholic Church is very difficult.

Footnotes

121. These matters will be discussed in greater detail in Volume Six, titled *The Catholic Church*.

122. He expressed himself this way about his learning: “Ich” will “meine” “Lehre” “ungerichtet” “haben” “von” ‎jedermann,‎ ‎auch‎ ‎von‎ ‎Engeln;‎ ‎wer‎ ‎meine‎ ‎Lehre‎ ‎nicht annimt,‎ ‎mag‎ ‎nicht‎ ‎selig‎ ‎werden“;‎ “a” elsewhere wrote: “Verflucht, sei, wer, dieses, nicht, glaubt”.

123. On June 16, 1525, Luther wrote of himself: “Through this marriage (to the nun Katharina von Bora), I have become so wretched and despicable that I believe the angels in heaven are laughing at me, while the devils in hell are howling with joy.” (De Wette, *Luther’s Letters* 3, 2). Melanchthon—though a close “colleague” of Luther—described him at the time as “immensely reckless and dissolute.”

124. Luther was also under the influence of the humanists.

125. Since Protestants do not have the legitimate priesthood, they cannot have the Sacrament of the Altar. According to For Luther, in the Sacrament of the Altar, Christ is present with bread and wine (impanation), but only in the moment of eating. Cf. the same author’s Mysteries of the Catholic religion. Chapter XX.

126. Read about Luther, the works of Jansen, Dollinger, Denifle, Grisark, etc. Zee Luther was not lover of the people, you can know from here that this people was inciting first to rebellion, and When the “Peasants’ War” broke out in 1525, he ordered him to be murdered without mercy. “It’s time” “the highest,” he wrote, “then” in order to choke out these “boors” like mad dogs. Let everyone, like ‎may ‎openly ‎and ‎secretly‎ suffocates ‎them ‎and ‎suffocates‎” Luther’s Works 24, 28, 294).

127. According to Zwingli, the Eucharist is ordinary bread and wine—specifically, a simple memorial, just as a wedding ring reminds a wife of her absent husband.

128. The king ordered Anne Boleyn beheaded in 1535, after which he took four other wives in succession, one of whom—Catherine Howard—was also executed.

129. Under Edward VI, Parliament approved a new liturgy, along with the 42 Articles of Faith—compiled by Cranmer—which were later reduced to 39. Leo XIII declared ordinations within the Anglican, or Episcopal, Church (alongside which exist many sects) to be invalid.

130. It cannot be denied that Catholics, too—retaliating against the Huguenots tit for tat—sometimes committed atrocities. The Huguenots themselves admitted that, during the early years of the war in France, they murdered four monks, desecrated two nuns, and demolished or destroyed 20 churches, 2,009 monasteries, and 90 hospitals. The massacre on the “Night of St. Bartholomew” was an act of political vengeance, for which the Church bears no responsibility.

131. At that time, there were reportedly 40 sects in Poland; however, as early as around 1570, the papal legate Jul. Ruggieri reported to Rome that within the span of two years, ten thousand non-Catholics in Poland had converted. (Cf. Fr. Wł. Krynicki, *Dzieje Kościoła*, p. 468).

132. James I, the first English king of that name, boldly declared: “I do as I please; the law and the Gospel depend on me.” Protestant governments adhered to the principle *cujus regio, illius et religio*; on this basis, the inhabitants of the Palatinate were forced to change their religion four times.

133. In a short time, the Protestants seized two archbishoprics, twelve bishoprics, and up to ten abbeys.

134. Read Dollinger, Die, Reformation, etc., 3, Banda, Regensburg 1846—48, 1846—48, Joh., Jansen. ‎Geschichte‎ ‎des‎ ‎deutschen‎ ‎Volk.es‎ ‎seit‎ ‎dem‎ ‎Ausgange‎ ‎des‎ ‎Mittelalters.‎ ‎8‎ ‎B.‎ ‎Freiburg.

135. In translating the Bible into German—albeit 18 other translations had preceded him—Luther committed acts of outright falsification here and there. Thus, for instance, in the Epistle to the Romans (3:28), he inserted into St. Paul’s words—”A man is justified by faith”—the phrase “by faith alone,” in accordance with his own erroneous doctrine. Likewise, he rejected the Epistle of St. James—which condemns dead faith, that is, faith without works—dismissing it as “an epistle of straw.”

136. For instance, in his work *Vorlesungen über das Wesen des Christentums*, Dr. Harnack argues that Christ—to whom he denies divinity—had no intention whatsoever of founding a Church, but rather that the Church, standing in direct opposition to the Gospel, is a human creation dating from the second century.

History bears witness that Protestantism not only failed to restore the apostolic spirit of the early days, but actually brought about terrible anarchy in matters of faith and morality—so much so that, as early as the 16th century, cries of horror escaped the very lips of its own adherents. Luther himself was forced to admit that, following the introduction of the “pure Gospel,” the Germans had become worse than they were under the rule of the Pope—whom he called the “Antichrist” and the “incarnation of Satan.” “Now people are possessed by seven devils, whereas formerly they were possessed by only one”—such were his words; and as early as 1527, he regretted having come forward with his teachings. On another occasion, he remarked that it would be no surprise if... God rained fire down upon Germany, just as He did upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet who was to blame for this, if not he himself? For surely, through his doctrine of justification by faith—and through such pronouncements as *fortiter pecca, sed fortius crede* (”sin boldly, but believe even more boldly”)—he unleashed the wildest of human passions.

Protestant writers—such as Raumer, Menzel, Kolb, Scherr, Hauser, Hellwald, and others—have acknowledged this as well. One of them—Professor Droysen, a liberal Protestant—describes the significance of the Reformation in these terms: “There has never been a revolution that shook society more profoundly, that wrought more terrible destruction, or that passed judgment more mercilessly. Instantly, everything disintegrated and was called into question—first in the minds of men, and subsequently, with unprecedented speed, in social relations, in all discipline, and in every form of order.” In Germany, the Reformation unleashed the horrific Thirty Years’ War; in France and the Netherlands, fratricidal strife; in Great Britain, a long series of atrocities and the oppression of unfortunate Ireland; and in Poland, the degradation of both spiritual and secular authority, as well as an escalation of impunity and other vices that ultimately brought about our nation’s ruin.

Everywhere, Protestantism manifested itself as a destructive hurricane; and if it did not wreak greater havoc, the reason is that the Church—as early as the 16th century—erected a formidable barrier against this religious revolution by implementing a salutary reform at the Council of Trent (1545–1563).

Luther’s central tenet—that faith alone, without works, saves man—threatened to undermine Christian ethics, the essence of which is love and the fruit of which is good works; consequently, later Protestants moved away from this position and, emulating the Catholic Church, turned their efforts toward works of mercy, establishing charitable institutions and even creating counterparts to Catholic religious orders, such as the deaconess institutes. At the same time, however, Christian ethics underwent a process of “secularization”—particularly after Kant proclaimed its autonomy, that is, its independence from dogma.

The second fundamental principle of Protestantism—that the Bible is the sole source of faith, which anyone may interpret according to inner divine guidance rather than the rulings of the Church—led not only to the complete fragmentation of unity in faith and the emergence of new sects (with over 70 counted in North America alone), but also to a false mysticism finding its ultimate expression in spiritualism (138); furthermore, it led to an extreme rationalism that stripped religion of every supernatural element, followed by various forms of monism—and thus atheism—which destroys all religion.

Individuals by no means suspected of harboring pro-Catholic sympathies have stated that Protestantism destroyed the idea of ​​the Church (Nietzsche) and utterly demolished the Christian religion (Grillparzer). We may also cite the testimony of Count Hoensbroeck, a former Jesuit who became an apostate and converted to Lutheranism. Here is what he writes in his autobiography, *Vierzehn Jahre Jesuit*, regarding the “Protestant church”: “It is a deeply imperfect human creation, its religious and Christian character weakened by official bureaucracy and sycophancy. The *Summus Episcopus* and the presbyters of this church have absolutely nothing in common with Holy Scripture or Christianity. It is dependent on the state, and its dignitaries are primarily concerned with gratifying their own vanity and pride.” “...Protestantism cannot inspire any love, nor even any respect. Its religious balance sheet ends in a deficit.” Also significant are the words of the prominent Protestant theologian Karl Jentsch: “The Protestant world owes it to the Roman Church that the Christian faith has been preserved within it; for there, it is constantly exposed to the danger of dying out from consumption” (139).

From the very beginning, Protestantism was a decaying tree; yet, starting in the 18th century, even its roots were being severed by the blade of rationalist criticism wielded by writers such as Semler, Bretschneider, Wegschneider, Rosenmüller, de Wette, Bauer, Strauss, Christian Baur, Bunsen, Schenkel, Ritschl, Lipsius, Adolf Harnack, Arthur Drews, and others. It reached the point where many theologians and pastors rejected even the Apostles’ Creed—and with it, belief in the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (140)—championing instead a liberal Protestantism centered around the *Evangelischer Bund*. Among the more prominent figures in recent times is Pastor Jatho, who formulated his credo at a public meeting in Berlin as follows: Jesus Christ is neither the Son of God, nor our Master, nor our Savior—and Pastor Heydorn, who... ...sought to reconcile Protestantism with monism—such as the Bremen preacher Albert Kalthoff, who termed the three theories regarding the conservation of energy, the law of evolution, and the infinity of the universe a “modern doctrine of the Holy Trinity”; Pastor Steudel, who proposed a “new ethics” that did not recognize the Decalogue; Superintendent Lahusen, who advised against adhering strictly to the literal text of the Apostles’ Creed during the ordination service; the Protestant theologian Arthur Drews, who in 1910 lectured in Berlin on the thesis that Christ was a mythical figure—a position he defended in his work *Die Christusmythe*—and others (141). It is hardly surprising, then, that increasing numbers of people are leaving the established church (*Preußische Landeskirche*) and declaring themselves to be without religious affiliation (142).

Under the influence of the doctrine of monism—a theory rooted in materialism—unbelief is spreading alarmingly in everyday life; meanwhile, the efforts of “orthodox” Protestant circles and authorities, as well as various associations (including the “interdenominational and international association of Christian students” dedicated to defending faith in Christ (143)), are unable to stem this destructive tide.

Nor will Protestantism be saved by spending vast sums on missions in pagan lands, by the zealous propaganda conducted across Europe since 1842 by the *Gustav-Adolf-Verein*, or by pastors fraternizing with Jews, Buddhists, monists, Freemasons, atheists, and the like at “congresses for religious progress” (144)—gatherings aimed at achieving a vague, “non-dogmatic” religious unity while simultaneously opposing Catholicism.

Although there are still believing Protestants in Germany, the disintegration of Protestantism is evident there—despite the efforts of church authorities, pastors, and the so-called association of “orthodox adherents of the external mission” (145); indeed, at the 14th Protestant Congress held in 1883, one speaker could rightly utter a cry of anguish: “The Evangelical Church is internally discordant and torn apart, unaware of its own goals and mission, and—amidst the external struggles of the times—devoid of all power and influence.” It is hardly surprising, then, that the renowned philosopher Eduard von Hartmann predicted the imminent demise of Protestantism, to be succeeded by the “religion of the future”—albeit one without God!

And what is it that still holds back this death? It is the absolute control exercised by governments over ecclesiastical affairs, the force of popular habit, the self-interest of pastors, the efforts of Protestant associations—such as the so-called “Inner Mission”—reverence for ancestors, the allure of political power and alleged progress, and finally, Protestant writings teeming with false accusations and even slander, alongside an old hatred of Catholicism (146)—a hatred so deeply rooted and intense that, in recent times, Protestant organizations have sent money, pamphlets, and pastors to Austria to lure Catholics indifferent to their faith away from the Church under the slogan *Los von Rom* (”Away from Rome”). Indeed, up to forty thousand “rotten fruits” have fallen from that ever-green and prolific tree; yet, in return, many noble and rational Protestants have abandoned—and continue to abandon—the doctrine... ...Luther or Calvin and returns to the Church.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, this list shines with such names as: the German authors Count Leopold von Stolberg, Friedrich Schlegel, Adam Müller, L. von Haller, Schlosser, Wasmann, Jarcke, Pfrover, and Hurter; the poet Werner; the philosopher Beckendorf; the jurist Philips; the painter Overbeck; the theologians Bickel, Hugo Laemmer, Augustyn Arndt, and Jerzy Ewers; the Danish authors Jørgensen and Sørensen; the writers Gnauseck-Hühne, Ludwika Henzel, and Countess Ida Hahn-Hahn; Professor Albert von Rouville (1909) (147); the novelist Paul Mathies (148); the Baumstark brothers; Duke Adolf of Mecklenburg; Duke Paul of Württemberg; Princess Caroline of Denmark; Princess Anna of Hesse; Queen Maria of Bavaria; and so on.

Others stopped at the threshold of the temple but, before their deaths, paid tribute to the Catholic faith—such as the renowned poet Baron Detlev von Liliencron, who wrote the following to the Catholic Seckendorf: “I sincerely long for a church, for a community where I can feel like a member. That is missing in the cold Protestant church. Your entire form of worship has an ennobling, gladdening, and calming effect. I feel a sense of bliss in your Church and find myself drawn more strongly toward a personal Mediator and toward God. Our Lutheran church is cold; bare white walls, monotonous hymns, and sermons that are unspeakably dreadful fail to inspire me. With you, on the contrary, there is abundant cheerfulness, a certain classical joy. In short, my heart—which craves love—feels drawn to the religion of love” (149). On the other hand, those who cross from the Catholic camp to the Protestant one are presumably wayward priests or religious who wish to cast off the yoke of celibacy and Catholic ethics—while among the laity, they are individuals who possess no faith but, out of hatred for Catholicism or for calculated reasons, wish to outwardly belong to one of the Protestant sects.

Footnotes

137. Luther himself lamented: “There are almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads.” Attempts to bring members of the Augsburg (Lutheran) and Helvetic (Calvinist) confessions closer together on the basis of a shared creed have failed and will never succeed.

138. Protestants boast of being free from superstition, yet recently an absurd superstition known as Christian Science has spread among them—even within the educated class—involving charlatans who recite mysterious prayers over the sick, ostensibly to heal them through divine power. Furthermore, fortune-telling, magic, spiritualism, and various forms of occultism have found adherents in major cities. Notably, it was discovered in 1916 that astrology was widespread in Germany and England, with dedicated periodicals devoted to this form of charlatanism. It is also striking how easily Freemasonry spreads in Protestant countries.

139. *Geschichtsphilosophische Gedanken*, 298: Jentsch and others dreamed of a merger between Protestantism and Catholicism—provided that certain Catholic dogmas were removed!

140. Believing writers from the Protestant camp themselves complain that “the Evangelical church is afflicted by grave errors which it is currently unable to overcome” and that “it commands no respect among either the educated classes or the working people” (so stated Stöcker, the Prussian court preacher [d. 1909])—that “contemporary Protestantism opposes the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ the Lord” (Wolf)—and that “the Evangelical populace is becoming increasingly de-Christianized and radicalized.” (Cf. Mohl, *In Pursuit of Truth*, Series I, Letter XI).

141. Pastors Traub, Andersen, and Hunzinger, Professor of Theology Baumgarten, and others also became prominent figures.

142. For example, in 1913, over 40 people made the switch; a separate committee was formed for this purpose under the name *Konfessionslose* (The Non-Denominational). They recognize no ecclesiastical authority and no religious denomination, advocating instead for an “individual religion”—or rather, for the absence of religion.

143. In 1913, Robert Wilder, the association’s general secretary, and his secretary, Ruth, gave lectures in this spirit in various cities, including in Austria.

144. The last such congress took place in Paris in July 1913, largely through the efforts of Théodore Reinach, a Jewish Freemason. Protestant pastors advocated for the creation of a “free religion,” and resolutions were passed declaring that Catholicism—due to its dogmatism and intolerance—was opposed to modern society and the “spiritual reverence for Christ”!

145. In 1875, out of 35.9 children born in Berlin, there were only 24 baptisms (meaning 11 “pagans”), and out of 13 marriages, barely 3 were solemnized in a Protestant church. The number of communicants dropped in a single year from 29,551 to 10,108, as the Prussian *Kulturkampf* wreaked terrible havoc there (cf. Józef Sebastjan Pelczar, *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, Vol. III, 132).

146. The convert Albert von Rouville rightly observed that Protestantism would have completely disintegrated and drowned in irreligious liberalism had it not been for the Catholic Church standing firm against it, steadfastly adhering to the teachings of Christ.

147. Rouville expounded the motives of his conversion in a beautiful work entitled Zuriick, zur, heiligen, Kirche. ‎Berlin‎ ‎19‎ ‎i0.‎ To‎Catholic‎truth‎ he‎came‎on‎the‎path‎of‎research‎into‎history,‎as also the present state of the Church and Protestantism. Namely, it attracted the unity of faith and infallibility. the seriousness of the teaching authority in the Church in the face of the terrible division in Protestantism and the negotiations with anti-religious liberalism.

148. He wrote novels under the pseudonym “Ansgar Albing”; in 1906, he returned to the fold of the Church and, having received holy orders, became a missionary in North America.

149. Cited in the booklet *Gdzie prawda* [Where the Truth Lies], Vol. II, p. 239, from the periodical *Die neue Rundschau* (January 1910).

During the Great War of 1914–1918—particularly in its early stages—there was a certain upsurge in religious life among German Protestants, affecting not only soldiers but their families as well; this was encouraged by Kaiser Wilhelm II himself and his generals, while Catholics set a positive example for them to follow. Furthermore, under the so-called *Burgfrieden* (civil truce), the malicious and unfair attacks against the Catholic Church—often voiced at Protestant gatherings and in their publications—diminished, though they did not cease entirely. Yet this peace would not last long; indeed, there was reason to fear that an anti-religious spirit would gain the upper hand in the new German republics.

The fate of Protestantism in other countries is similar—a decline is evident everywhere; indeed, in the Netherlands itself, many pastors endorsed Ernest Renan’s appalling pamphlet titled *The Life of Jesus*.

In England, the so-called Episcopal Church wards off ruin by adopting an increasing number of Catholic rites and practices; yet this very movement—known as Ritualism or Puseyism (150)—alongside the study of Christian antiquity and the efforts of the Catholic clergy, has brought many educated people into the Church; to name but a few: theologians such as Newman, Manning, and Faber; peers and statesmen such as Stuart, Campden, Ripon, George Bruce, John Ward, and Allan Napier; and writers and artists such as Richard Simpson, James Hope Scott, James Herbert, Clarkson, Stanfield, Lady Fullerton, Miss Anstice Baker, Adelaide Procter, and others (151).

In the United States of America in 1910, out of a population of 92 million, only 38 million professed a religious faith; among them were 13.7 million Catholics and 24.3 million adherents of paganism, Judaism, schismatic movements, or Protestantism (152). There is a vast number of Protestant sects, and almost every one of them is divided into a greater or lesser number of distinct groups. For instance, the Lutheran sect, numbering 2,400,000 souls, comprises 31 groups; the Presbyterian sect, with three million adherents, consists of 12 groups; the Methodist sect—the largest, with seven million members—includes 16 groups, and so on. Among these sects, Baptists and Methodists are particularly noted for their fanaticism and proselytism; yet, despite vigorous propaganda, tens of millions of Americans profess no religion. Instead, Masonic lodges, Spiritism, Buddhism, Krishnaism, occultism, and similar aberrations attract a considerable number of adherents.

XVII. The Eastern schism stands far closer to the Catholic Church than Protestantism does; for it holds the same Apostles’ Creed and the same decrees of the first seven ecumenical councils; it possesses a visible priesthood, headed by bishops as successors to the Apostles; and it maintains the Holy Mass, the seven holy Sacraments, and devotion to the Mother of God and the Saints. It is termed a schism because it broke away from the Holy See. At the same time, it fell into certain dogmatic errors: specifically, it rejected the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the existence of Purgatory; finally, it rejected the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the infallibility of the Pope as the supreme teacher of revealed doctrine.

For well over ten centuries, the Eastern Churches—situated within the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem—along with their bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs, regarded themselves as part of the Catholic Church and maintained unity of faith and obedience with the Roman See; the latter sent its legates to the early ecumenical councils held in the East and ratified their decrees. Admittedly, from the time the imperial capital was moved to Byzantium (in 330), the patriarchs of Constantinople strove to break free from papal authority and to establish hegemony over the entire East; yet their rebellions—often supported by heretical sects and by Byzantine emperors all too prone to caesaropapism—were usually short-lived.

It was not until the 9th century that a more significant challenge was raised by Photius (d. 891)—a learned man, yet extraordinarily ambitious and devious—who paved his way to ecclesiastical dignities through intrigue. Raised from the laity to the patriarchal see following the unlawful deposition of Patriarch Ignatius, he acknowledged the authority of Pope Nicholas I over himself; However, when the Pope excommunicated him for usurping the office, Photius excommunicated the Pope in turn and, in a letter to three other patriarchs, accused the Western Church of betraying the faith and ecclesiastical discipline. Following his final removal from the patriarchal office (in 896), the Eastern Church was reunited with the Holy See—a union that endured throughout the tenth century, the very period when Rus’ received the Christian faith from Byzantium. It was not until 1054 that the arrogant and audacious Patriarch Michael Cerularius revived the old charges raised by Photius and brought about a complete schism, which, regrettably, persists to this day. Rus also followed Constantinople in the 12th century and—unlike Russia, which remained schismatic—returned in large part to the Catholic Church only under the rule of Polish kings (1595).

How truly sorrowful the state of the Eastern Church became from that time on! Not only did it turn in upon itself—severing all ties with the life-giving sources of the Catholic Church, the Holy See, and Western civilization, and thereby sinking into a lethargy of spiritual stagnation—but it also fell into a state of servile dependence on secular rulers: first the Byzantine emperors, and later the Turkish sultans, Russian tsars, and other princes who used religion as a political tool. The principal malady of the separated Eastern denominations is so-called Byzantinism, manifesting as caesaropapism in the relationship of the state to the Church, and as servility in the relationship of the Church to the state.

For instance, in Russia, Tsar Feodor Ivanovich—acting on the advice of Boris Godunov—established a new patriarchate in Moscow in 1588 after bribing Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople; Tsar Alexis (1645–1676) curtailed the rights of the clergy and ordered the reform of liturgical books, thereby provoking resistance from the Old Believers; Tsar Peter I, by a decree issued in 1721, placed the Russian Church under the authority of the Holy Synod—whose chief official (the Ober-Procurator) was a layman acting as the Tsar’s deputy—and transformed the Orthodox clergy into a caste of *chinovniks* (state officials) entirely dependent on the government (155); and in 1797, Tsar Paul officially proclaimed himself the “head of the Church.”

And what was the state of this Eastern schism prior to the Russian Revolution of March 1917?

Regarding hierarchy, it possesses bishops in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles; consequently, priestly ordination and the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are valid there.

Regarding the doctrine of faith, it accepts the Apostles’ Creed and the decrees of the first seven ecumenical councils, yet rejects certain Catholic dogmas mentioned above.

Regarding discipline and religious life, Russian Orthodoxy fragments into a multitude of sects—all the more dangerous for being largely clandestine (156). Among them are, for instance, the *Raskolniki*—or Old Ritualists (also known as Old Believers)—who reject the liturgical books revised by Patriarch Nikon as well as the rites he introduced; this group comprises the *Popovtsy* (Priestists), who acknowledge the hierarchy and the sacraments, and the *Bezpopovtsy* (Priestless), who reject the visible priesthood and divide into smaller sects such as the *Pomortsy*, *Filippovtsy*, *Evangelists*, *Spasovtsy*, and *Theodosians*. There are also the *Przekhrzchentsy* (Re-baptizers), who consider the baptism received in infancy invalid and repeat the rite in adulthood; and the *Morelshchiki*, who receive baptism by burning themselves in fire. — there are the Skoptsy, who make themselves eunuchs; — there are the Khristovtsy—also known as Khlysty or “flagellants”—who, during their gatherings, scourge themselves until they bleed and believe in the repeated incarnation of Christ; there are the Molokans, who have neither priests, sacraments, rituals, nor icons; — similar to them are the Stundists, who, following the example of Protestants, read the Holy Scriptures without priests at their “Gospel circles” and also subscribe to communism (157); — there are the Dukhobors and Veriginists, whose orientation is likewise Protestant and communist; There are the “Right-Hand Brethren,” who profess polytheism and anthropomorphism; there are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Sabbatarians, who reject faith in Christ the Lord and, alongside the Jews, await the Messiah; there are the Joannites, who venerate John of Kronstadt (d. Jan. 1909) as a saintly miracle-worker—or even as Christ—and claim to receive revelations from God, and so forth.

In recent times, the monk Heliodorus—whom the Holy Synod expelled from the Orthodox Church—founded, according to Russian newspapers, a new sect known as the “Society of Brotherly Love”; it was based on communist principles, and at its weekly meetings, members sang hymns in praise of the sun, the earth, the forest, and the water. Educated people, and especially women, were among its members. Alongside Heliodorus—who authored contemporary lampoons against the Catholic Church and was a collaborator of Bishop Eulogius, a promoter of Orthodoxy in Galicia—a pernicious influence was also exerted by certain fanatical monks from the monasteries (particularly Pochaiv), known as “elders.” Much of a stir was also caused by Grisha Rasputin—a follower of the monk Heliodorus and a simple peasant from Siberia—who, through charlatanry and feigned miracles, managed to bewitch not only the Russian aristocracy but also the imperial court and Tsar Nicholas II himself, along with the Tsarina; indeed, the appointment of high-ranking officials came to depend significantly on him, and the imperial apartments in St. Petersburg and Moscow were thrown wide open to him (158).

The state-controlled Church—wholly dependent on the Minister of Religious Affairs and on the Tsar-Pope (who issued his orders through the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod)—was and remains unable to purge these sects from its midst; and while, up to the year... Up to 1905—that is, until the issuance of the Edict of Toleration—it expanded its borders outwardly not through apostolic mission, but through treachery and violence (of which the Uniate Church fell victim), while inwardly it was rife with stagnation and impotence. The Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky rightly observed: “Since the time of Peter the Great, our Church has been in a state of paralysis.”

The Orthodox hierarchs—numbering 130 across the three metropolitan sees of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Kiev—carried out in every respect the will of the government as conveyed through the Holy Synod; this bred a degrading servility and earned them the contempt of enlightened laypeople. “Always fearful of losing their privileged position within the Church—writes Father Aureli Palmieri, a distinguished expert on Orthodoxy—they dread everything: competition from other denominations, the hostility of the intelligentsia (which grows by the day), and any political change. Consequently, they cling with all their might to the old autocratic system as if it were a lifeline, identifying their own fate with its survival.”

The influence of the hierarchs on society is very limited; yet among them, there were those who desired the convocation of an ecumenical Orthodox council—a move, however, that the Holy Synod did not permit.

Footnotes

150. From Pusey—who, however, did not return to the Church; for this reason, Pius IX likened him to a bell that calls people to the church but does not enter it itself.

151. Revren Morawski, *Evenings by Lake Geneva*, p. 213. In 1910, the eldest son of the Anglican Primate of England, Robert Hugh Benson, returned to the Church; he subsequently became a Catholic priest and won renown for his writings.

152. According to the almanac published by the New York daily *The World* for the year 1915.

153. The schismatic and heretical confessions of the Chaldeans, Armenians, Syrians (Jacobites), and Copts—which broke away from the Church as early as the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries—are not of great significance. A portion of them profess the Catholic faith today.

154. In a letter to the Eastern churches, Photius accused the Latins of the following: 1) fasting on Saturdays; 2) permitting the consumption of dairy products during the first week of Lent; 3) showing contempt for married clergy; 4) refusing to recognize confirmation administered by Greek priests; and 5) falsifying the Creed with the *Filioque* addition and distorting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In a letter to the Bulgarians, he rejected the primacy of the Pope. To this day, on the first Sunday of Lent, the Patriarch of Constantinople solemnly excommunicates the Latins, along with other heretics.

155. The influence of caesaropapism and Protestantism is evident in the church reforms of Peter I.

156. As early as the beginning of the 18th century, Archbishop Dmitry of Rostov counted as many as 200 sects. Cf. Rev. Wł. Krynicki, *Dzieje Kościoła powszechnego* [History of the Universal Church], p. 572; Rev. Karol Dębiński, *Raskoł i sekty* [Raskol and Sects], Warsaw 1916.

157. They have only one sacrament—namely, baptism—which they receive upon reaching the age of reason. The “Shtunda” movement is most widespread in Ukraine among the Little Russians. (Cf. Dr. Stan. Smolka, *Die russische Welt*, Vienna 1916, p. 157).

158. Rasputin allegedly engaged in debauchery under the guise of prayers conducted in secret with women. In the summer of 1914, a fanatical peasant woman named Guzieva seriously wounded him with a dagger, and in December 1916—according to press reports—he was murdered by Prince Yusupov and his associates. Before Rasputin, Nicholas II’s pseudo-mysticism had been exploited by the Buddhist Prince Meshchersky, the hypnotist Philips, and the charlatan Bezobrazov.

159. For accounts of the persecution of Uniates, see *Pius IX and His Pontificate* (Vol. I, Ch. XI.X; Vol. II, Ch. XVII; Vol. III, Ch. X.I) and *Martyrology, or the Martyrdom of the Union in Podlasie* by Prelate Józef Pruszkowski (Parts I and II). Following the promulgation of the Edict of Toleration on April 30, 1905, and up to 1910, over 237 Orthodox believers—mostly former Uniates—returned to the fold of the Church, while 79,779 individuals converted to other faiths, including Islam and paganism! A movement favoring Catholicism also began to emerge among the Old Believers. Conversely, the Orthodox clergy, at their own gatherings and during sessions of the Duma (the Russian parliament), called for a struggle against Catholicism, seeking the protection of the government—which, in turn, increasingly... He restricted the Edict of Toleration.

160. *La Chiesa Russa*. Rome 1907, pp. 691 et seq. *Gazeta Kościelna*: “What Orthodoxy Is Worth.” Year 1912, pp. 74 et seq.

The “black clergy”—that is, the monastic clergy from whose ranks hierarchs are drawn—is numerous and wealthy, yet it does not enjoy a good reputation regarding learning and discipline (161).

The “white clergy”—the parish priests—are accused of ignorance, lethargy, and a caste-like mentality; drunkenness is found here and there, and extortion is nearly universal, as priests must support usually large families on meager stipends.

An increasingly stark antagonism is arising between the lower and higher clergy; matters have reached the point where priests, at the instigation of the Moscow Theological Academy, are calling ever more loudly for reform—though a reform of a liberal and rather Protestant character.

Seminaries, theological academies, and church schools are in a sorry state, and it is not uncommon for seminarians to engage in serious misconduct.

Despite its outward splendor, the Eastern liturgy exerts almost no influence on the lives of the faithful; in many churches, the people’s entire participation in the service consists of chanting “Hospodi pomiluj” [Lord, have mercy], while even the clergy show little concern for the cultivation of Christian virtues.

The educated classes either believe in nothing or content themselves with the vague ideas of Stundism or the fanciful notions of Tolstoyism; meanwhile, those who wish to save Orthodoxy see salvation solely in a thorough reform of the clergy and the convening of a national synod involving the laity.

The common people possess deep religious feeling and a strong attachment to external rites—to which they attribute an almost magical power—yet they are even more characterized by ignorance, superstition, and a propensity for drunkenness. In short, Russian authors themselves lament the deplorable state of Orthodoxy.

Count Leo Tolstoy (d. November 20, 1910) also exerted a destructive influence through his writings, preaching a religion of love—yet one devoid of dogma and church—and sowing the seeds of socialism among the people (162). It is hardly surprising, then, that the weeds of nihilism and social revolution flourished luxuriantly in soil so prepared.

Despite its internal powerlessness, Russian Orthodoxy has not stopped striving to achieve this through perverse propaganda. destroy the remnants of the union in Galicia and Hungary, as they detected the processes in between 1913 and 1914, brought against schismatic agitators in Debrecen and Lviv; and it was openly revealed during the war in the years 1914-1915, when ‎Volhynian ‎Eulogiusz‎ under the protection of Russian bayonets and with the help of populace brought from Russia and Ruthenian apostates spread Orthodoxy in Galicia. After a momentary triumph in 1914, there was the pogrom of Russia in 1915 and the fall of tsarism in 1917, because not only Russian troops were defeated and had to leave the Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania, part of Belarus and Courland. But the supposedly powerful state became a state of anarchy, which overthrew the throne of the tsars, and she gave the slogan to create several hostile republics. She reminded the world of this vision. Nebuchadnezzar was struck by a stone which crushed a huge statue with legs of clay. It is also difficult not to to see God’s nemesis in that he was the successor of those powerful and cruel tsars who Yes, they did great harm to the Church and to the Polish nation, and he was dethroned by his own subjects. sent as a prisoner to this country which has so many innocent people for their attachment to their country ‎the homeland ‎persecuted, ‎watered with its tears, ‎and ‎then ‎by ‎the ‎own ‎subjects ‎for the murdered ‎ (163).

The Russian Revolution, having removed Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917, inflicted a heavy defeat on Orthodoxy, which was a slow tool of tsarism on the one hand, and was taken from the other Zen’s main power. The interim government not only announced freedom of religion, but what came out for the benefit of various sects, and also of the Roman Catholic Church and the Uniate Church - but he removed two metropolitans (Pitirim of St. Petersburg and Makarij of Moscow) and announced the convening of a council. There was no resistance on the part of the clergy; moreover, the diocesan congregation in April In 1917, in Moscow, he sent words of “loyalty and trust” to the revolutionary government. In secular society, there are voices calling for the separation of the church from the state. confiscate church and monastic goods and deny the clergy an allowance of 50 million rubles from the public treasury; in diaries, virulent outbursts against the clergy are multiplying. Yes, for example ‎moderate first Birż. ‎Wiedom.‎ in ‎article ‎under the title ‎Princes‎ of the Orthodox Church, about Russian ‎archireys‎ speaks up in the following way: “You they themselves are princes of the Orthodox Church, who now, unexpectedly, loved freedom and once adored Pobiedonostsev. ‎and ‎Sabler, and ‎in recent times ‎Grisha‎ Rasputin... ‎Against Grisha Rasputin, ‎this ‎incarnation‎ the most terrible sacrilege known to the Orthodox Church, even the best of them did not dare raise one’s voice, and the worst... they bowed before the filthy vagabond and they begged for his grace... Yes, in a free state the Church should be

free, but the freedom of the Church cannot be given to slaves, flatterers, servants of autocracy And to the traitors... The princes of the church bowed for a very long time before the princes

of this world, they have been fraudulently playing with too precious objects. It is time to put an end to this unclean thing. “game” (164).

In 1917, an all-Orthodox council was held in Moscow; in addition to hierarchs, it was attended by representatives of the lower clergy—elected by the body of priests—and by lay delegates. It was resolved to restore the Church’s autonomy through the election of a patriarch and a council board, to initiate a process of reconciliation between the official Church and the Old Believers, and to organize parish communities on a democratic basis.

However, shortly after these reforms were enacted, the “Maximalists”—known as the Bolsheviks—triumphed; this ultra-radical party, having assumed power under the leadership of Lenin and the Jew Trotsky, declared the Russian Republic to be non-religious and mandated the separation of church and state, the seizure of church lands and buildings, and the abolition of oaths, religious instruction in schools, and religious marriage ceremonies. At the same time, a significant portion of the Russian people, desiring a redistribution of church and monastic assets, turned against the clergy, who failed to mount a vigorous defense of their gravely threatened religion.

Matters reached the point where the Orthodox clergy in Omsk sent a plea to Pope Benedict XV (on February 7, 1919), asking him—”as a representative of the Christian Church”—to condemn the lawlessness of the Bolsheviks, who had “murdered the Metropolitan of Kyiv, Volodymyr, some 20 bishops, and hundreds of clergy,” while also raping nuns and proclaiming the “socialization of women and license for the most unbridled passions.” It was not until 1919 that Bolshevism was defeated.

Amidst this turmoil, Catholics in Russia suffered greatly, particularly because—in Volhynia, Podolia, and Ukraine—brutalized soldiery, together with the Orthodox rabble, fell upon Polish estates (165).

Ukraine declared itself an independent republic and—notably at Brest-Litovsk—concluded an alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary (1918) (166); yet no benefit for Catholicism ensued from this, even though the Metropolitan of Lviv, Andrey Sheptytsky—released from captivity in 1917—strongly advocated for the Union. Moreover, in July 1918, the “general council” of the Kyiv Metropolis elected Antony Khrapovitsky as Metropolitan of Kyiv; he was the former hierarch of Kremenets who, alongside Hierarch Eulogius, had vigorously propagated Orthodoxy in Galicia, relying particularly on the monks of Pochayiv. This election demonstrated that a significant majority of the Ukrainian clergy gravitated toward Russia and recognized the Moscow Patriarch Tikhon as their supreme head. Thus, the prospects for the Union in the former... In Galicia, meanwhile, some Ruthenian priests supported the Haidamaks, who imprisoned and robbed many Latin-rite priests—and brutally murdered five of them!

The state of schism in other branches of the Eastern Church is likewise far from ideal; they are all but withered boughs, bearing little foliage or fruit. The Patriarchs of Constantinople—who frequently purchase their see with money (167)—have so alienated their subordinates through the imposition of heavy levies and the trafficking of ecclesiastical dignities that Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Cypriot bishops, as well as the Patriarch of Karlovci and the Archbishop of Mount Sinai, have all but cast off the oppressive yoke, establishing fifteen independent churches. Yet even these severed branches lack vital sap, particularly as they are ravaged by simony—a fact recently exposed to the world by the trial of the Greek bishops (168).

As for the Romanians, the war of 1916–1919 demonstrated how little religiosity and morality existed among them.

Footnotes

161. In 1915, there were 578 Orthodox monasteries for men in Russia, housing 20,935 monks, and 467 convents for women, housing 41,188 nuns. In 1916, the number of priests was estimated at around 50,000.

162. In 1917, the people—so deeply loved by Count Tolstoy—looted the estate at Yasnaya Polyana, where his widow lived!

163. On July 16, 1918, the Bolsheviks shot the former Tsar Nicholas II, and shortly thereafter, they also killed the thirteen-year-old Tsarevich Alexei.

164. Cited by *Przegląd Powszechny*. Year 1917, Vol. 136, p. 534.

165. The Latin Bishopric of Kamianets was re-established in 1919, but the newly consecrated Bishop Piotr Mańkowski was unable to take up his see.

166. Under this treaty, the Central Powers ceded the Chełm region and Podlasie to Ukraine—a move against which the entire Polish nation vigorously protested.

167. In 1855, there were seven living ex-patriarchs whom either a synod or the Sultan had deposed from office.

168. Cf. Józef Sebastian Pelczar, *Pius IX and His Pontificate*, Vol. III, p. 301.

There is, indeed, no other salvation for the breakaway Eastern churches, one in a return to unity. ‎with‎Rome‎;‎o‎‎tern‎‎also‎thought‎ before‎his‎death‎‎tsar‎Alexander‎And, o‎that‎ Famous converts prayed among schismatics, such as Prince Gagarin, who later he became a Jesuit, or Count Gregory Shuvalov, who became a Barnabite, or General Nikolai who became a Trappist, or a woman like the Governor’s Countess Rostopczyn, Zofia Shvetsin, Natalia Naryshkin, Princess Zeneida, Volkonskaya, Princess Golitsyn, and others! (169).

In their footsteps, may all those who have gone astray, both Orthodox and Protestants, return to the true flock of Christ, whose visible shepherd is the successor of Saint Peter.

XVIII. How wonderful the Catholic religion looks compared to all these religions!

This “religion” is only true and divine, because it brings to light the truths of faith and faith. The main rules of morality come from the revelation of God, which began in the Old Law. completed and closed and closed in the New by God-man himself. The guard of this revelation. Together with the stewardship of graces and the shepherding of souls, it was entrusted to the Church, teaching, ruling and governing. established also by Jesus Christ and having the gift of infallibility, that is, the constant help of the Spirit Holy, that there can be no mistakes in preserving and teaching the revealed truth.

That this revelation is divine, that Jesus Christ is true God, that the Church The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and therefore the only true Church and the leading one until salvation, we will prove. elsewhere in detail; here it is enough to point out the truly divine character of Christ the Lord, the prophetic ‎which ‎happened ‎before‎ came true, ‎for ‎miracles‎ which He ‎himself ‎fulfilled, ‎for ‎supernatural‎ the extension of His religion and its wonderful effects, on its nobility and its conformity with reason. Catholic dogmas, on the holiness of the moral law, on the characteristics of the Church. Catholic, to the countless testimonies, and especially to the virtues of the Saints, to death for Christ, so many martyrs, and miracles, confirming his divine beginning (170).

All of this evidence is based on facts that have greater certainty than so many other facts, recognized as irrefutable, on undeniable facts, against which all ‎allegations of ‎disbelief ‎are ‎what ‎clouds ‎for‎ the ‎sun‎ ‎—‎ on ‎facts‎ so obvious that‎ ‎so many great thinkers, ‎so many ‎geniuses‎ and not only ‎surrendered ‎and ‎submits ‎humbly‎ their ‎reason‎ the truth of faith, but he defends it with all the might of his conviction. Against this religion and the Catholic Church, even dissenters cannot hide their admiration. Yes, for example, well-known ‎chemist‎ ‎Christian‎ ‎Fryderyk

Schónbein, a Protestant (+ 1868), did not hesitate to say: “The Catholic Church is one with the greatest phenomena in the history of mankind; it is a wonderful work and a gigantic organism (171).

This religion is perfect in itself and unchangeable, as far as the articles of faith are concerned. The principles of God’s law and what comes to the foundations of the organization of the Church, because all this comes from from God and is eternal, as God alone, the Church cannot change anything here; and if the new dogma announces how, for example, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary ‎in 1854, ‎or ‎papal infallibility in 1870, no it is this creating new truths, but only bearing witness that these truths are of Christ have been placed in the deposit of revealed doctrine, under the guard of the infallible teaching authority. The Church truth, in accordance with needs, more closely determines and in line with the articles of faith, all applicable picks up, that is, figuratively speaking, these precious stones from Christ himself in his treasury placed, polished and set in its crown (172).

History bears witness that certain truths—initially obscure and hidden—became clear, distinct, and ripe for dogmatic definition in a later age, owing to the factors at play within it, particularly the actions of heretics on the one hand and Catholic doctors and councils on the other; furthermore, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church ensures that its supreme teaching authority cannot err in preserving, defining, and teaching revealed truths.

In this way, the Catholic religion offers a certain and immutable truth—precisely the kind that human reason needs and desires. Yet, it is not something rigid or stagnant; progress is indeed possible—whether in the exposition and demonstration of dogmas defined by the Church (the task of theology) or in the subjective appropriation of these dogmas and their application to Christian life, such that through meditation, any dogma can become a source of wisdom and holiness for the soul. If you wish to see this for yourself, study these dogmas thoroughly and meditate upon them in accordance with the Church’s teaching. Furthermore, progress is evident in the realms of ethics, liturgy, and discipline—and ecclesiastical law in general—for here the Catholic Church wisely takes into account the needs of the times. Thus, within it, the element... ...unchangingness is combined with continuous progress.

On the other hand, the view held by modernists today—that Church dogmas are merely symbols of inner beliefs and subject to the law of evolution, such that they might at times bear a different meaning than they do today—is erroneous. Such progress would mean the destruction of religion (173).

This religion is universal, for it is intended for all generations and ages; it meets the needs of the simple and the wise alike, of both barbarian and civilized peoples. “It is a truly great feature of the Christian religion,” said the philosopher Hegel himself, “that, despite its profundity, it can be easily grasped and itself invites one to delve into its depths. It is suited to every level of education and, at the same time, satisfies the highest demands” (174).

This religion is a source of true happiness, for—as we shall demonstrate below—it satisfies the needs of the intellect, the will, the heart, the family, and society, while leading those who live by its precepts along a straight path to light, holiness, peace, and salvation. While one may indeed find honest people of virtue in other religious faiths, it is the Catholic Church alone that produces such ideals of humanity as the Saints.

Today, this Church has not ceased to be living and fruitful, despite the frequent predictions of its old age and demise; for even today it possesses a magnificent hierarchy, led by great popes and bishops;—even today it has so many shepherds full of zeal, so many missionaries full of courage and fervor, so many religious men and women full of self-denial and dedication;—even today it has a host of profound thinkers capable of reconciling vast knowledge with humble faith;—even today it has a multitude of holy souls, shining with piety, fortitude, and charity;—and even today it has millions of faithful of every station and nation, living according to its precepts.

What happiness, then, and what glory it is to belong to this Church and to profess the Catholic religion! Truly, the wise and pious Spanish King Alfonso X rightly said: “Every day I thank God, not for being a king, but for being a Christian.”

XIX. But here we encounter an objection: All religions are based on truth and provide man with certain rules for living; is it not right, then, to leave it to his own discretion which religion he wishes to profess?

This is not right; for just as God is one and truth is one, so only one religion can be the true one; Otherwise, one would have to claim that the truth lies with the Catholic who believes what the Church teaches, and with the Protestant who does not acknowledge the Church, and with the Jew who rejects the Savior Jesus Christ, and with the Muslim who regards Muhammad as a divine prophet—implying that one truth excludes another, and thus that all religions are false.

Only the Catholic religion possesses the pure and complete truth; while all other religions may contain fragments of truth, these are mixed with errors. Furthermore, they differ from the Catholic religion not only in rites but also in dogmas—meaning they represent a greater or lesser corruption of it. Yet reason itself dictates that man has a duty to seek the truth—and the whole truth at that—all the more so because, for man, there is no... It is not a matter of indifference to what one believes, for religion affects one’s entire life—both temporal and eternal—and governs all one’s relationships.

Moreover, God Himself—as Supreme Truth and Holiness itself—could not have revealed a false religion; and since He has revealed the true religion and marked out a specific path to Himself, He has thereby laid upon man the obligation to accept this religion and to follow that very path; otherwise, he will not attain salvation.

To claim that God, having granted revelation, looks on with indifference as to whether someone believes or disbelieves, accepts the whole truth or only a part of it—or whether one bows down to fetishes, Buddha, Muhammad, or Christ—would be an act of impiety; for it denies the holiness of God, who cannot lie to or deceive mankind, nor can He be indifferent to truth and falsehood.

If man were free to profess any religion he chose, why did the Son of God come into the world in human form, allow Himself to be crucified, and establish His Church—commanding it to proclaim the Gospel to all nations? Why did Christ the Lord issue the warning: “He who does not believe will be condemned” (175)? Therefore, whoever does not accept—or, if able to do so, does not seek—the true religion opposes the will of God and brings a sentence of condemnation upon himself; yet there can be only one true religion, and that is the one which Christ has revealed through His Church.

Therefore, the aim of those new apostles of the “religion of humanity” is irrational and anti-religious—those who would wish to merge all religions into one, that is, to leave behind only a vague religious sentiment and, on that basis, establish a universal brotherhood of peoples (176)—or, at the very least, to strip the individual Christian denominations of everything that distinguishes them from one another, in order to create an “essential Christianity” — non-dogmatic and non-denominational (177).

It is also impious for deists and rationalists to claim that one need not concern oneself with dogmas—viewing them merely as human inventions designed to cast religious beliefs into specific formulas—and that it suffices simply to live well, that is, to act according to moral principles derived solely from reason. For, in the first place, religious truth was not invented by man; rather, God Himself revealed it and commanded that it be accepted through faith, and the primary obligation imposed by this truth is to worship God and keep His commandments. Secondly, morality not grounded in religion—that is, in faith, hope, and charity—is a fragile spiderweb, easily torn apart by the slightest wind. Humanity would be in a wretched state indeed were it to possess nothing other than such a morality.

It is also foolish to claim that any change of religion is a dishonorable act, or that every person ought to adhere to the religion of their ancestors. Abandoning the true religion—that is, the Catholic faith—is indeed a shameful and reprehensible act; it constitutes a grave sin against God, a sign of intellectual folly or moral corruption, a source of great scandal to society, and an irreparable harm inflicted upon the apostate himself, his offspring, and his nation. Conversely, renouncing any other religion—however cherished by one’s forebears—in order to enter the Catholic Church is a sacred duty of conscience that must be fulfilled regardless of family opposition or even persecution by others; at the same time, it is a highly honorable undertaking, for it testifies to true wisdom, courage, and concern for the well-being of oneself and one’s loved ones. The distinguished German writer Count Stolberg, for instance, magnanimously followed the dictates of his conscience; when King Frederick William III of Prussia reproached him with the unpleasant remark, “I do not like those who change their faith,” he gave a fitting reply: “Neither do I; had my ancestors not changed their faith, I would not have needed to return to the Catholic Church.” All heretics and schismatics could say the same when renouncing error or schism. To claim, however, that one must unconditionally adhere to the religion of one’s ancestors would be tantamount to legitimizing any religion whatsoever, even one amounting to abominable idolatry.

XX. Finally, one more question. If only one religion is true, and everyone ought to seek it, what becomes of those who cannot find it? My answer is that those who could not come to know Christ the Lord and His Church, yet remain in inculpable ignorance and in good faith, will not be held guilty for not professing the true religion; rather, they will be judged according to the natural law and the voice of conscience. “There is but one truth,” said the learned Cardinal Newman, “religious error is immoral by nature, and its defenders are not without blame, unless excused by ignorance. Truth and falsehood serve to test our hearts; the choice between truth and falsehood is a momentous step upon which our salvation or damnation depends” (178).

On the other hand, God commands the Catholic Church to proclaim the Gospel to all generations and ages, for—in the words of the Apostle—God wills that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (179); and history bears witness that Catholic missionaries are reaching ever-new corners of the earth, such that eventually there will be no people without the opportunity to know the true religion; and thus Christ’s prophecy will be fulfilled: that there shall be one flock and one Shepherd. Moreover, God not only works continuously within souls—enlightening and stirring them with His inspirations, and striking fear through the pangs of conscience—but also employs various means to draw individuals to the Catholic faith, such as the labors of priests, the words of encouragement from believers, the appeal of their virtues, good books, comfort or suffering, and especially... ...reflections on the beauty, unity, and enduring nature of this religion.

Let us look merely at the nineteenth century. How many souls were drawn to faith or piety by a holy man such as Blessed John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, or by Pius IX? How many prejudices or objections were dispelled by the lectures of figures like Lacordaire, Ravignan, and others? How many skeptics or materialists were converted by the sight of miracles wrought at Lourdes and elsewhere (180).

There were also instances where Divine Providence intervened in a truly miraculous way to cast a resistant soul at the foot of the Cross or to usher it into the true fold. Take, for example, Alphonse Ratisbonne—a Jew who believed in nothing—who entered the Roman church of San Andrea delle Fratte merely out of courtesy to a friend, only to be found moments later kneeling, bathed in tears, and urgently desiring baptism. What brought about such a change? The Most Holy Virgin Mary appeared to him and made him kneel before the altar (January 20, 1842). Soon after, he received baptism, and later holy orders, and spent the rest of his life in Palestine working for the conversion of the Jews (d. 1884).

Then there was the Israelite Hermann Cohen—a famous pianist, though devoid of religious principles—who, while playing the organ as a courtesy during a funeral service at the Church of Saint-Valère in Paris, was so deeply moved upon seeing the Host with which the priest was blessing the congregation that he trembled all over and could not hold back his tears (1847). The same experience recurred when he attended Mass in Ems during the Elevation. Shortly thereafter, he became a Christian, a Discalced Carmelite, and a priest, dedicating his life to spreading devotion... ...of the Most Blessed Sacrament and the establishment of night adoration (181). Both found true happiness in the Catholic religion.

If you wish, dear reader, to discover what a treasure this religion is, consider what it offers to the intellect, the will, the heart, the family, and society as a whole—and, in particular, to our nation.

Footnotes

169. The famous writer Solovyov is also counted among the converts.

170. Cf. Chapter XI. The divine origin and truth of the Catholic Church will be discussed in the sixth volume of this work.

171. Menschen‎ ‎und‎ ‎Dinge‎ ‎Stuttgart‎ ‎1855‎ ‎page‎ ‎186‎ ‎sq.‎

172. I discuss this at length in Volume VII of this work, titled *The Mysteries of the Catholic Religion* (Chapters I, XI, and XII; Przemyśl, 1918).

173. Pius X’s encyclical *Pascendi* of September 8, 1907. Cf. Chapter IX.

174. Vorlesungen‎ ‎iiber‎ ‎die‎ ‎Philosophic‎ ‎der‎ ‎Geschichie.‎ ‎IX,‎ ‎343.

175. The Gospel of Saint Mark 16:16.

176. Freemasonry praises this religion, “upon which all agree.” (Cf. the same author’s *Freemasonry, etc.*, 4th ed., Ch. II.)

177. Separate congresses are also held to unite peoples under the banner of “free Christianity and religious progress.” The fifth such “religious” congress took place in Berlin in 1910 (August 5–10); present as a representative of Catholics was Father Romolo Murri—a leading figure among Italian modernists and reformers who had been excommunicated by Pius X.

178. Development of Christian Doctrine. Chapter VIII 8 1

179. 1 Timothy 2:4.

180. The miracles at Lourdes will be discussed in the fifth chapter. A profound impression was made by the miraculous healing of the worker Pierre de Rudder—who suffered from an incurable leg fracture—which took place on April 7, 1875, at the Belgian sanctuary of Oostakker and was verified by Bishop Waffelaert and ten different commissions.

181. He died in 1871 in Spandau, having contracted smallpox while nursing sick French prisoners.

V. The True Source of Religion.

I. In the course of his earthly journey, man encounters various things that engage his spirit and capture his heart; But what ought to concern him most, and be dearest to him? Religion. And why is this so? Because upon it depends his happiness—both on earth and beyond the grave; and furthermore, because religion penetrates deeply into the fabric of private, family, social, and political life, such that man encounters it at every turn. Yet, so many people—even among Catholics—do not know the true religion as they ought to know it; and there are even those who condemn religion, despite not knowing it at all.

And what, then, is religion? It is a personal and living relationship between man and God—the beginning and end of all things 1; that is to say, it is a moral union of man with God, the purpose of which is for man to come to know God, to worship Him, to live in accordance with His will, and—by means of His grace—to be united with Him on earth through faith, hope, and love, and in eternity through participation in His glory 2.

We reserve the formal demonstration of the spirituality and immortality of the soul for a later stage (2).

Since God is the Creator and Lord of man, and man is a creature of God possessing an immortal soul, there necessarily arises—from the very nature of things—man’s relationship with God: a relationship encompassing the entire human being and every manifestation of spiritual life—a relationship whose ultimate goal is man’s eternal union with God. The rejection of this relationship—that is, the negation of religion—is, at the same time, a negation of both God and the human soul. And how is this relationship manifested? Behold, God stoops down to man by revealing His truth to him, by giving His law, and by extending His aid; while man rises up to God 3 by knowing Him through reason and faith, by observing His law, by availing himself of His graces, by rendering Him worship, and through prayer, contrition, and sacrifice 4.

Footnotes

1. In the second volume of the work titled “On God.”

2. In Volume III, titled *On the Soul*. Both volumes have already been released, as has Volume VII, titled *The Mysteries of the Catholic Religion*.

3. Saint Augustine rightly stated: *Religio dicitur eo, quod nos religet omnipotenti Deo.* (Cited in: Fr. Z. Cieplucha, *O istocie religii*, Poznań.)

4. Some writers, to be sure, discourse upon religion without God, substituting in His place some other factor—such as the universe (Strauss), the moral order of the world (Fichte), humanity (Comte), an infinite impersonal absolute (Schleiermacher), the unconscious will (Schelling), the mechanical principle of causality (Haeckel), beauty (Ruskin), or humanitarianism (as does Freemasonry); yet such a religion is merely a caricature of true religion. — More recent writers—such as Hartmann, Hillebrand, Herbert Spencer, and others—even discourse upon the “conscience of animals,” or their ethics, and even their “religion”—a notion that Hegel had already rightly ridiculed.

Religion—taken subjectively, that is, as religiosity in the broader sense of the word—is, therefore, a virtue inclining man to accept the truth about God and to fulfill all his duties toward Him 5.

The foundation of religiosity—and, as it were, the first step toward God—is faith; for it enables us to know the Lord God as Essential Truth and as the source of those truths which God has revealed to mankind. Thus, it unveils to the soul the supernatural world—the divine realm—just as the eye of the body unveils the natural world, and reason unveils the world of thought, principles, and human knowledge. The aim of religiosity is the adoration of God through inner disposition and outward reverence, while its essence is the supernatural virtue of love—for it unites the soul with God as the Supreme Good; thus, it has been beautifully and aptly said

that religion is a kiss exchanged between God—who, out of voluntary love, stoops down toward His creation—and the creation, which, in turn, rises up toward God through free love 6.

If, however, we view religion from an objective standpoint, we perceive in it a collection of truths about God, moral precepts, acts of public worship, and spiritual means—in a word, the ordering of our entire relationship with God. It therefore necessitates a public institution—one possessing a mission and authority derived from God—whose duty it is to proclaim Divine truth, to secure obedience to Divine law, to render public worship to the Lord God, and to administer spiritual means; and such an institution is the visible priesthood—that is, the Church: teaching, sanctifying, and governing. Thus, from the very idea of ​​religion, the concept of the Church necessarily follows—specifically as a teaching, priestly, and pastoral office. Without such an office—established by God and endowed with the gift of infallibility—the preservation of revealed religion in its entirety and purity, as well as its propagation and active presence in the world, or even the proper performance of the rites of religious worship, would be impossible. Indeed, both the Sacred Scriptures and the records of history bear witness that Christ the Lord not only brought truth, grace, and salvation, but also established a teaching, priestly, and pastoral office—that is, a Church that teaches and governs—to stand as the guardian of revealed religion; to this Church He entrusted the work of the sanctification and salvation of mankind, and for this purpose, He bestowed upon it His own authority and the stewardship of those graces merited by His death.

As regards its source, a distinction is made between natural religion—that is, the religion comprising truths known through the natural light of reason—and supernatural religion—that is, the religion comprising truths of the supernatural order, revealed by God.

Footnotes:

5. “Religion, properly speaking, implies an ordering to God,” says St. Thomas Aquinas.

6. Marian Ignacy Morawski. *Evenings by Lake Leman*. p. 91.

Religion, considered subjectively, encompasses the entirety of human nature; for it not only requires the intellect to humble itself before Divine Truth, but also requires the will to submit itself to Divine Law. It demands of the spirit not only acts of interior worship directed toward God—namely, adoration, thanksgiving, self-offering, contrition for sins, and supplication—but also demands of the body acts of homage and external practices.

This stems from the very nature of humanity; for since man—as a creature—depends entirely upon God, his Creator and Lord, he is thereby bound to know God, to live in accordance with God’s will, and to worship God, manifesting this worship both inwardly and outwardly. — This is demanded by reason itself, as well as by human integrity; thus, Chateaubriand rightly wrote to his son: “I hope that, while doing everything possible to become a thoroughly honorable man, you will realize that one cannot be such a man without rendering unto God that which is due to God. 7 ”

Footnote

7. Bishop Bougaud cites this in his work *Christianity and the Present Age* (Vol. V, p. 51; Warsaw, 1913; translated from the French).

This, too, is what God Himself demands. — Look into the oldest and most venerable of books—which, as we shall later learn, is a book written under the direct inspiration of God—that is, into the Bible 8, and there you will read the following commands: “If I am a Father, where is my honor? And if I am a Master, where is my fear?” says the Lord of hosts 9. “Without faith, it is impossible to please God” 10. — “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” 11. — “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve” 12. — “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” 13.

From these words, it follows that—when religion is considered subjectively—its constituent elements are: firstly, the knowledge of God and of those truths which God has revealed, acquired through faith; secondly, the fulfillment of God’s will—that is, of God’s commandments, and particularly the first and greatest commandment of love; thirdly, the reception of the graces that God bestows through His Church; and fourthly, the honoring of the Lord God—not only inwardly but also outwardly—through the use of certain rites, known as liturgical rites.

Thus, both reason and Sacred Scripture demonstrate that religion springs from the inherent needs of human nature and encompasses all the human faculties—that is, the entire essence of man.

II. Consequently—in the light of both reason and Sacred Scripture—false or inadequate definitions of religion cannot withstand scrutiny; such definitions include, for example: Kant’s view that religion is nothing but morality 14 and a postulate of practical reason; Fichte’s view that religion is solely the cognition of the All-Being; Hegel’s view that religion is the consciousness of identity with the Absolute; Ziegler’s view that religion is a yearning for the infinite and a manifestation of egoism; Wundt’s view that religion is faith in a moral ideal; Spencer’s view that religion is nothing but doubt; Feuerbach’s view that religion is a manifestation of selfishness—or, alternatively, a pathological aberration of our nature, and thus the source of all delusion and misery; Hellwald’s view that religion is a figment of the imagination and a necessary illusion; and the views of Rousseau, Schleiermacher, Jacobi 15, Hartmann, and others—that religion is the product of... ...and the gratification of sentiment—of Strauss and others, that religion is a collection of myths—that is, fables—which, in the face of a culture of progress, must give way—of Salomon Reinach, that religion is a complex of scruples that constrain the freedom of action of our faculties—of Count Leo Tolstoy, that religion is love of neighbor without faith in dogma—of Harnack, that religion is a bulwark against the despondency aroused by materialism and pessimism—of Troeltsch, that religion is a private matter—of the proponents of so-called American religion, that religion is an independent ethics and social action—of Freemasonry, that religion is humanitarianism, or love of humanity—of the defenders of so-called voluntarism (following, for example, Kant: Paulsen, Windelband, R. A. Lipsius, Spitta 16), as well as of the newer pragmatism or humanism, to which belong W. James, Ch. Peirce, F. C. Schiller and Bergson hold that religion—as a product of the will—is an autonomous ethics (that is, independent of dogma) and a form of utilitarianism.

Footnotes

8. Cf. Volume Four, “On Divine Revelation.”

9. Malachi 1:6

10. To the Hebrews 11:6

11. Luke 10:27

12. Matthew 4:10

13. Matthew 19:17

14. This view was also defended by Lessing, Goethe, and many more recent writers—particularly the proponents of so-called moralism and voluntarism.

15. Jacobi said of himself that he was a Christian at heart, but a pagan in his head.

16. Spitta made this confession about religion: “Not because I adhere to religion, it is true, but because religion is true because I adhere to it, and I adhere to it.” therefore and as much as it suits my needs” (Dr. Josef Mausbach quotes: The Religion and the Modern Seelenleben in his work Religion, Christentum, Kirche I. B 1912, p. ‎50).

We most frequently encounter the view that religion is a matter solely of sentiment—and that, consequently, one can do without dogmas—a notion prevalent among the educated, particularly in the Protestant world. This perspective appeals to them because it stirs the emotions to some degree and fosters a certain pietistic mood, while simultaneously liberating them from belief in dogmas, from the fear of hell, and from the fulfillment of more arduous duties. Is it any wonder, then, that among contemporary Protestants, unbelief is spreading so rapidly—and is, moreover, infecting many Catholics? Similarly, even among us, one finds writers and educators who would prefer to bypass the dogmatic and catechetical aspects of religion, advocating instead for an appeal solely to the heart as the seat of the emotions 17. This error is by no means new, for it is akin to the ancient heresies of the Euchites, Bogomils, Beguards, Fratricelli, Quietists, the pseudo-mystics of the 18th century, and the Protestant Pietists.

In recent times, even within the Catholic camp, proponents of a “religion of feeling”—that is, defenders of so-called Modernism 18 —have emerged. They assert that religion is the result not of Divine Revelation—apprehended by the intellect and accepted through faith—but rather of a so-called “religious sense”: an inner sentiment arising from the human heart’s yearning for that which is immutable, infinite, and Divine, and from the human will’s inclination toward that which is beneficial. Yet these theories—standing in close kinship with Protestantism and the philosophy of Kant—are erroneous. For although religion does indeed satisfy the needs of the heart and the will, it addresses itself primarily to the intellect, which possesses both the duty and the capacity to apprehend religious truths—whether through independent inquiry or through the mediation of Divine Revelation. We could not believe—as was said— —as St. Augustine rightly observed—were we not possessed of a rational soul. 19. In religious life, it is not sufficient merely to summon up momentary stirrings of the heart and whims of the will; rather, one must possess a strong and living faith in revealed truths—precisely as the Catholic Church teaches them—and act in accordance with God’s revealed will. Conversely, a religion stemming solely from inner sentiment—and not grounded in immutable dogmas—would amount to nothing more than an unbridled sentimentalism: a mere fabric of nebulous impulses, dreams, and aspirations that shift according to individual temperaments and the particular stage of each person’s spiritual evolution. As such, it would bear the unmistakable stamp of falsehood and disintegration. Such a religion would lead, on the one hand, to pantheism, and on the other, to indifferentism—those very vestibules of atheism. “A religion without dogmas,” observed... ...as Jerzy Reinhold rightly observes—is a “psychological impossibility” 20. Nevertheless, some modern writers seek to reconcile theoretical atheism with religion—that is, they discuss religion without belief in God; and Frauenstadt even boldly asserts that belief in a transcendent God does not constitute the essence of Christianity 21.

Footnotes

17. Such an opinion has recently been expressed by Witkiewicz, Feldmanowski, and others.

18. Pius X condemned the errors of Modernism in the encyclical *Pascendi* of September 8, 1907, and in a *Motu Proprio* dated September 1, 1910. More on these errors will be found in Chapter IX. We must also count Wincenty Lutosławski among the Modernists, for in his writings—such as *Religia w życiu narodowem* (Religion in National Life), *Eleusis*, *Wykłady Jagiellońskie* (Jagiellonian Lectures), *Seelenmacht*, and others—he maintains that faith is grounded in subjective inspiration, and that this inspiration constitutes a revelation from above: one originating “from higher selves,” and specifically from the Supreme Self of the world—that is, from God. His convoluted arguments clearly betray the influence of Towianism, as well as the Messianism of Mickiewicz and Słowacki’s *Genesis*. Despite this, he seeks to be regarded as a good Catholic and exhorts others to embrace religiosity. A small handful of followers have, to varying degrees, absorbed his spirit. ...known as “els.” (Cf. Fr. Urban T.J.: *Eleusinian Catholicism V*, in *Przegląd Powszechny*, 1910). — Prof. Maryan Zdziechowski also came forward in defense of Modernism, a subject that will be discussed in Chapter IX of this work. Erroneous concepts regarding religion are also to be found in the writings of other Polish authors—for instance, the ex-Capuchin Wysłouch (Szech) and Fr. Andrzej Huszno, who, however, subsequently recanted his errors.

19. The relationship between reason and faith will be discussed in Chapter VI.

20. Der‎ ‎Alte‎ ‎und‎ ‎der‎ ‎neue‎ ‎Glaube.‎ ‎118

21. Cited by Fr. Zygmunt Cieplucha — p. 42

Similarly, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, voices grew increasingly insistent that religion should be supplanted by modern culture; yet, in the recent war, this very culture suffered a shameful bankruptcy, for it failed to restrain ostensibly Christian nations from acts that were truly barbaric and inhumane—such as poisoning combatants with gas and dropping bombs upon open cities.

As for the essence of religion, it is likewise erroneous to believe that religion consists solely of pious practices; rather, its true essence lies in the worship of God “in spirit and in truth” 22 —a worship manifested, above all, as faith, hope, and love. External worship, devoid of inner reverence and true morality, constitutes a loathsome hypocrisy—indeed, a veritable mockery of God.

On the other hand, it is erroneous to assert that acts of external worship—such as prayers, devotions, and the like—are suitable only for the simple-minded and unnecessary for the educated; for every person of good will derives great spiritual aid from these acts. Moreover, every individual—as a composite being—is bound to render homage to the Creator with both spirit and body. It is worth recalling here the words of Napoleon I—at that time still First Consul—spoken to one of his companions when the sound of the Angelus bell reached his ears: “Listen, Citizen—do you hear the bells ringing over there in the church? Well, I tell you frankly: whenever I hear the sound of church bells, I am deeply moved, for they remind me of my native land, the day of my First Communion, and other religious solemnities.” Church ceremonies evoke a similar impression—and not only among the simple-minded, but also among superior minds. Finally, it is an error to hold that religion is merely sustenance for the imagination and a solace for the heart 23 —and, consequently, perhaps necessary only for children and women, who stand at a lower stage of spiritual development, but superfluous for thinking men; for religion exerts its influence upon all the faculties of man, imposes duties upon his entire being, and satisfies all his spiritual needs—such that religion—and here we speak of the Catholic religion—serves as a light and guide for the intellect, a rule and source of strength for the will, and a wellspring of happiness and peace for the heart; it acts as the most powerful lever in the lives of individuals, families, nations, and human society as a whole. Thus, every human being—whether simpleton or sage—stands in need of religion; and if he rejects it, he thereby demonstrates that he is not acting as a rational being.

Knowledge alone—however vast—cannot replace religion, nor can external culture alone—however magnificent; for religion has a distinct mission that neither knowledge nor culture can fulfill. Indeed, true knowledge leads to the Supreme Truth, and true culture leads to the Supreme Ideal—to the Archetype of all ideals—to God. And if religion is necessary for all, then its external aspect is likewise necessary for all.

Here, someone might raise an objection: “Let there be external worship, since man cannot do without it; but why does the Catholic Church require us to pray so often and so much?” After all, doesn’t God know what we need? Why, then, devote so much time and money to religious services, when the majority of people must toil for their daily bread, and so many of the poor reach out their hands for support?

Why pray? Because human nature and the very essence of prayer demand it. For what, indeed, is prayer? It is the homage of the creature to the Creator, the tribute of the subject to the King, the plea and thanksgiving of the beggar at the Lord’s gates, the caress of a child upon the Father’s bosom, the groan of the sinner before the Judge’s tribunal, and the longing of the exile for a heavenly homeland. If a man truly feels himself to be human, he prays; if, however, he does not pray, he thereby demonstrates that he is not a man, but a devil or a beast—or both.

Undoubtedly, God has no need of our prayer; yet we have need of it—and for this very reason, God requires it of us. Prayer does not detract from the perfections of God; for it is precisely in this that the love of the Lord God is revealed—that He listens to the petitions of His rational creatures and grants those requests, provided they are in accord with His will. Nor does prayer infringe upon the immutability of the laws established by God, nor is it a futile exercise—as it appeared to the pseudo-philosophers of the eighteenth century; for if man can, in a specific instance, suspend one law by means of another—for example, by extinguishing fire with water or relieving pain with chloroform—why should the Almighty Creator of these very laws be unable to do the same? Finally, prayer does not demean human dignity—as Rousseau claimed; on the contrary, it lends the soul a flight that is nearly infinite—for it ascends toward God—and, at least for a moment and imperfectly, unites it with Him. Indeed, even the pagan poet Homer himself observed that prayers... ...are the daughters of Zeus 24.

It is, indeed, a great misfortune—and a sign of the weakening, or even the fading away, of faith—if a person ceases to pray; and woe to the state that abolishes or restricts public prayer.

Conversely, the well-being of individuals, families, and society demands that people pray—and that they pray in the manner required by the Divine Will—all the more so because prayer enriches our soul with heavenly treasures, lifts it above earthly misery, and brings it peace, comfort, strength, nobility, and holiness. It may rightly be said that prayer is to the soul what light and air are to the body.

But to what end does the Church so frequently and magnificently arrange its services? It does so that man—at least on certain days (of which there are not many)—might remind himself that he depends entirely upon God and owes everything to Him; and, consequently, that he might outwardly manifest his submission and offer sacrifices of prayer, of labor, and of alms. Yet, the Church does not demand monetary offerings from the poor; on the contrary, it supports them to the best of its ability, establishes various associations and institutions for their benefit, and—in times of dire poverty—even surrenders its sacred vessels for this very purpose.

External worship stems from the fundamental needs of human nature and constitutes an essential component of religion; indeed, there is not—nor has there ever been—a religion devoid of specific rites. That the Church surrounds these rites with reverence and spares no financial offerings for them—offerings which, moreover, the faithful willingly present as a tribute of their hearts—is in no way surprising; for she is mindful of the words of Sacred Scripture: “To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory” (1 Tim. 1:17), and again: “Mine is the silver, and mine is the gold,” says the Lord of hosts (Hag. 2:9). — How, then, is the Protestant accusation—that the pride of popes, bishops, and priests created this pomp—both absurd and unjust! If such pomp was absent in the catacombs, it was solely because, at that time, the Church was undergoing persecution.

Liturgical services are of profound significance—not only in religious and ethical terms, but also socially and aesthetically 25; moreover, the outward splendor of the ceremonies and the magnificence of the temples speak eloquently to the human soul, revealing how great and holy God is, and thereby dispose one all the more readily to humble oneself before the Divine Majesty. Such qualities are absent from non-Catholic houses of worship; indeed, Protestants themselves lament that their form of worship is too cold and stark. Equally memorable are the words of Frederick the Great: “Among the Calvinists, God is merely a servant; among the Lutherans, He is a master and a brother; but among the Catholics, He is God” 26.

Footnotes

22. Gospel of St. John 4:22

23. Strauss said that the father of religion is feeling, and the mother is imagination.

24. Cited by Bishop Bougaud, Vol. 1, p. 68.

25. It is well known what a powerful social bond public worship constitutes—gathering, as it does, people of diverse stations around the same altar—and how much the fine arts owe to religious observance.

26. Cited in *In Pursuit of Truth*, Series IV, Letter 1, p. 12, Poznań 1908.

In light of what has been stated, the socialist contention—that religion is a strictly private matter and must therefore be excluded from state and social affairs—falls to the ground. For religion not only pertains to all human faculties, providing them with the assistance necessary for both inner and outer life, but also defines man’s duties toward God, toward himself, toward his neighbors, and toward society; hence, society—and, by extension, the State—can neither ignore nor combat religion; to do otherwise is to propagate atheism, violate consciences, and undermine morality and social order.

III. Let us now examine the origins of religion. First and foremost, we establish the following facts: firstly, that religion is encountered in all ages and among all peoples; secondly, that in all religions—alongside a belief in the Deity—we observe a more or less distinct belief in the immortality of the soul, as well as some form of external worship and certain moral principles and precepts. That humanity—from its very cradle—believed in the Deity and in an afterlife; that it knew of prayers, sacrifices, and religious rites; and that it possessed certain ethical norms—this is attested to not only by the most ancient traditions and texts, not only by the ruins of ancient temples and altars, and not only by hieroglyphic, cuneiform, and other inscriptions 27, but by all the historians, poets, philosophers, and lawgivers of antiquity.

Speaking on behalf of all, Cicero asserts: “There is no nation so uncultured and savage that it does not recognize the necessity of having a God—even if it does not know which God it ought to have” 28. Equally well-known are the words of Plutarch: were one to traverse the entire earth, one would find no city devoid of temples or gods, no city that did not practice prayer, oaths, or oracles, nor any that failed to offer sacrifices to obtain blessings or avert misfortunes 29).

Footnotes

27. The oldest monuments date from the years 3200 to 3100 BC.

28. De‎ ‎Leg.‎ ‎Cap.‎ ‎24

29. Adv.‎ Colot.‎ Epicur.

And can the same be said of savage peoples—those only recently discovered? It can; for to this day, no people have been found that possesses absolutely no religious beliefs—even though the enemies of religion, ever since the time of Voltaire, have eagerly sought just such a people 30. Admittedly, such claims were indeed made regarding the Corrado Indians of South America 31, the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego 32 and Central Australia 33, and the Bechuana tribe in Africa 34; yet these assertions stemmed from the fact that travelers either failed to investigate the matter thoroughly, or succumbed to subjectivity in their inquiries, or else attributed a lack of religion to these peoples simply because they found among them neither refined concepts of God nor a developed public cult, but only crude fetishism or a belief in the agency of evil spirits 35. Yet this very belief—no less than the cult of the dead— Sorcery and human sacrifice are expressions of the corruption of nobler conceptions of God—as it were, a caricature of religion, yet one that nonetheless bears witness to man’s relationship with some Higher Being; if, however, among certain tribes there are individuals or even families immersed in idiocy—resembling animals rather than humans, and thus possessing no conception of God whatsoever—these must be counted among the exceptions 36.

Footnotes

30. Especially Darwinists such as Lubbock, Haeckel, and others; however, Lubbock’s assertions were refuted by G. Roskoff in his work: *Das Religionswesen der rohesten Naturvölker* (§ 36 et seq., 178 et seq.). “No people has yet been found—these are his words—devoid of any traces of religiosity.” This is confirmed by renowned scholars such as Max Müller, Waitz, Peschel, Bastian, Quatrefages, Tylor, Hellwald, Sal. Reinach, de Broglie, Andrew Lang, Leopold Schröder, Borchers, W. Schneider, Tiele, Foukart, Wilh. Schmidt, LeRoy, A. Bros, and others. Missionaries working among primitive peoples offer the same testimony.

31. Buchner.

32. Darwin. Yet this writer admitted that, as far as belief in powers higher than nature is concerned, such a belief is found among the inhabitants of the islands of Tierra del Fuego.

33. Messenger, Bradley, Baldwin, Spencer, and others.

34. Livingstone.

35. Cf. Waitz, *Anthropologie* I, 322; Schneider, *Naturvölker* II, 36. Quatrefages rightly observes in his work *L’espèce humaine* (p. 256): “Every religion is based on a belief in certain deities; however, the concepts formed regarding those beings—whether worshipped or feared—cannot, among different peoples, be truly identical.”

36. The renowned Assyriologist Tiele clearly demonstrates that the assertion regarding the existence of any peoples or tribes devoid of religion is the result either of imprecise observation or of a confusion of concepts, and that the travelers who maintained such claims have been refuted by evident facts (*Compendium der Religionsgeschichte*, p. 7, 1887). Similarly, Friedrich Ratzel firmly asserts: “Ethnography knows of no peoples without religion” (*Allgemeine Völkerkunde* I, 37).

The universality of religion is a fact so clear and certain that even such an adversary of Christianity as Ernest Renan was compelled to admit that “humanity is religious.” It is also a certainty—for history bears witness to this—that religion is as old as humanity 37, and that history cannot demonstrate a beginning to religion.

IV. How, then, is the genesis of religion to be explained? Opponents of Divine Revelation strain to devise various theories on this matter 38. According to them, the source of religion lies—now in the very feeling of human dependence upon the visible world (Happel) and the imagining of natural forces as living entities—as gods—that is, the apotheosis of the forces of nature (Max Müller);—now in the deification of celestial bodies—that is, astral mythologism, or Pan-Babylonianism (Winckler, Jeremias, Stucken);—now in practical considerations and human selfishness (Kant, Edw. Hartmann);—now in the fear of death, or of catastrophes, or of certain hidden powers (Epicurus, Lucretius, Hume, Vogt, Strauss, Roskoff, Bousset, et al.);—now in the exuberance of fantasy and the desires of the human heart (Max Müller, Feuerbach, Schleiermacher, Renan, Ziegler, Paulsen, et al.);—now in the pangs of conscience and the need for consolation—that is, eudaimonism (Girgensohn, et al.);—now in egoism—that is, the securing of one’s own happiness. ...even after death (Hartmann et al.);—whether it be the cult of spirits animating the bodies of nature and the veneration of deceased ancestors—that is, animism and manism (Edw. Burnett Tylor, Herbert Spencer et al.);—or the cunning of lawgivers, kings, and priests (Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Hobbes, Schopenhauer et al.); yet none of these hypotheses explain to us the genesis of a phenomenon so certain and universal—nay, rather, they presuppose the prior existence of religion and merely account for certain of its aberrations. Speech existed before grammar was written; the stars existed before astrology appeared; and, likewise, religion existed before man began to abuse it.

Specifically, it is erroneous to assert that legislators invented religion in order to keep the populace in subjection; the truth is merely that they grounded their laws and state institutions upon already existing religions, thereby lending their enactments a higher sanction; indeed, history bears witness that religion precedes the state and rises above it 39.

It is also erroneous to assert that priests—acting either alone or in collusion with rulers—imposed religion upon unenlightened peoples; for the people would not have acknowledged the authority of the priests had they not already held reverence for the Deity whose servants the priests claimed to be. Moreover, any deceit on the part of the priests—or any conspiracy with rulers—would have been swiftly exposed, leading to the total collapse of religion 40. Yet, religion has endured even through the greatest political and social upheavals, and it harbors no fear of cultural progress. It is likewise erroneous to claim that the human relationship with nature—and, above all, the fear evoked by terrifying phenomena in the physical world—compelled people to submit to certain hidden powers, and thereby to religion; for religion is not merely an exclusive sentiment of blind and servile dread, but encompasses other elements as well. ...and these are higher factors that awaken nobler sentiments—such as, for instance, the adoration and love of the Deity. Secondly, how could man attribute terrifying natural phenomena to a deity if he did not first believe in that deity’s existence? Moreover, with the advancement of enlightenment and a better understanding of natural forces, religion ought to have vanished—yet this is not what we observe. Admittedly, climatic conditions do influence the shaping of religious concepts and the development—that is to say, the formation—of mythology; However, what we are dealing with here is a transformation of religion, not its origin. It is erroneous to assert that religion owes its inception solely to reason, solely to feeling, solely to imagination, solely to the will—exercised for the sake of human advantage—solely to a belief in the malevolent influence of spirits, or solely to ancestor worship; for while all the faculties of the soul do indeed engage with religion, they do not create it. Belief in spirits presupposes the existence of a Supreme Being who reigns over those spirits; ancestor worship, conversely, is a sign of the degeneration of religion and appears particularly among peoples whose culture has already grown decrepit—such as the Chinese.

V. All these hypotheses can be refuted by this single certainty: that religion could not have become that ideal power which dominates the entire world, had it been merely a simple human invention—the product of selfish calculation or the delusion of a morbid imagination.

It is also true, as Pascal observed, that false religions could not have arisen were there no true religion 41. Where, then, must we seek the origin of religion? In human nature, in the order established by God, and in Divine Revelation.

Footnotes

37. Max Muller Ursprung und Entzuickelung der Religion, page 88

38. These hypotheses are critically analyzed by: Rev. Dr. I. Radziszewski in *The Genesis of Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy* (Włocławek, 1911); Dr. Paweł Schanz in *Apologia of Christianity*, Vol. I, § 4; and Rev. Dr. Szydelski in the work *Studies on the Origins of Religion* (Lwów, 1916).

39. Schanz‎ ‎I.‎ ‎c.‎ ‎T.‎ ‎I.‎ ‎page‎ ‎105

40. Even the Darwinist Herbert Spencer rejects the assumption that religion was an invention of priests (Cf. Dr. Anton Seitz Natürliche Religionsbegriindung Regensburg 5 10.

41. Schanz‎ ‎1,‎ ‎1,‎ ‎118

God has endowed man with the natural light of reason, by means of which man can—and indeed ought to—know with certainty the one and true God from “the things that are made” 42; just as he can, with equal certainty, demonstrate the freedom of the will, and the spirituality and immortality of the soul.

Thus, through the path of independent inquiry, reason arrives not only at the knowledge of God but also at the recognition of this truth: that to God—as the Creator and Lord of all things, and as our most loving Father and greatest Benefactor—are due honor, love, and obedience; and in this very duty, religion essentially consists.

God inscribed the fundamental principles of natural law upon the tablet of the human spirit 43, and endowed it with a conscience—serving as both the guardian of this law and the earthly judge of human deeds—to remind man that he must irrevocably submit himself to the law, and thereby shun evil and do good.

Thus, the law leads man to the Supreme Lawgiver, and conscience to the Supreme Judge; both alike command that we render unto God that which His will requires—that is to say, they demand religion. Were religion to vanish from this earth, natural law would vanish along with it. God has instilled in the human heart a desire for happiness—that is, for truth, beauty, and goodness; yet man cannot satisfy this desire in any other way than through union with Him who is Truth, Beauty, and Goodness itself; and it is precisely to this union that religion leads.

Footnotes

42. Sacred Scripture has clearly declared this: “For all men are foolish who have no knowledge of God, and who, from the good things that are seen, could not understand Him who is, nor, by giving heed to the works, did they recognize who was their Maker” (Wis. 13:1). Relying upon Sacred Scripture, the Vatican Council in 1870 proclaimed: “If anyone should deny that the one and true God, our Lord and Creator, cannot be certainly known by man through the natural light of reason from the things that are created, let him be anathema” (Sess. III, Cap. V, *De Revelatione*). By this decree, extreme traditionalism—or fideism—which denies the reason for this power, was condemned.

43. Saint Paul to the Romans 2:84

God established a moral and social order in the world, the foundations of which are: law, duty, conscience, liberty, justice, virtue, and sacrifice; yet these foundations would surely crumble were they not grounded in the relationship between man and God—that is to say, in religion. Thus, Plato rightly observed: “Whoever overthrows religion overturns the very foundations of human society” (De Leg. I, 10); and following him, Plutarch stated: “It is easier to build a city in the air than to found a state without religion” (Adv. Colot.); while Xenophon remarked: “Cities and nations that were most religious were always the strongest.”

In short, by creating man, God made him a religious being; thus, the well-known definition *homo animal religiosum*—”man is a religious animal”—is not without foundation, and the words of Tertullian are justified: *anima naturaliter christiana*—”the human soul is by its very nature Christian.” Therefore, if man rejects religion, he does violence to human nature and demonstrates that he is unworthy of being human. This sentiment was expressed by the pagan rhetor Dio Chrysostom: “All men possess a strong desire to worship the Deity and to serve Him”—wherein they resemble small children longing for their father and mother 44.

This was also acknowledged by the German thinker Paulsen—a man by no means suspected of any religious bias: “Religion belongs to the normal functions of the human soul; its absence indicates some deviation in individual or collective life” 45.

This disposition of human nature—originating from the Creator Himself—explains to us why the human mind (even that of a child) is so inclined to embrace religious and moral concepts; why we encounter these concepts throughout all ages and among all peoples; why reason seeks the origin of all things and absolute truth, and constantly strives toward the ideal; why Holy Scripture declares: “The fool has said in his heart” (and not in his intellect) “there is no God” (Ps. 13:1) 46; and why even those who have renounced religion—in times of grave crisis, and especially in the face of death—turn to God for aid, or else place their faith in superstitions, sorcery, spirit-summoning, and the like; or, as did Auguste Comte, Nietzsche, Tolstoy, and others, create for themselves a new religion.

The learned naturalist Elias Cyon rightly observed: Religion is something immensely profound and indestructible. It is as ancient as the human race itself, and it owes its origin to the rational nature of man. Hence, we find it present in primitive man no less than in the brilliant representatives of modern science 47.

However, the question arises here: was the religion professed by “primitive” man the product of his own spiritual endeavor—just like his other inventions? It is certain that human reason, through independent inquiry, can with certainty discern the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the fundamental principles of natural law; yet, on the other hand, we know from the history of philosophy how even the great sages of antiquity went astray in their search for religious truths belonging to the natural order. Was human reason, then, left solely to its own devices, receiving no assistance from any quarter? Indeed, reason itself dictates that it is a matter worthy of God—and necessary for man—that God should reveal to man how he ought to conduct himself toward God in order to attain his ultimate end; and history bears witness that God, out of infinite love... He gave man such a revelation—meaning that religion is a truly Divine, supernatural creation.

The Bible—rightly called both the Book of God and the Book of Humanity (for it contains humanity’s religion, ethics, philosophy, law, and history)—and especially that specific book known as the Pentateuch, tells us: 48 that God, having created our first parents, revealed Himself to them not only through the natural light of reason but also through the supernatural light of faith, as the Supreme Truth and Infinite Love; that He elevated them to a supernatural state, for He united their souls to Himself by the bond of supernatural love—that is, sanctifying grace; that, furthermore, He endowed them with other privileges which they were to pass on to their descendants; and that, on the other hand, He proclaimed His law to them and gave them a commandment—upon the observance of which their own destiny, and the destiny of all their posterity, was to depend; and when our parents [violated] this commandment... ...they transgressed, and thereby—both for themselves and for their posterity—forfeited supernatural graces and privileges; yet God promised to send a Redeemer who would restore, purify, and sanctify all things.

This primordial revelation not only passed into the religion of the Chosen People as the foundation for subsequent revelations—the pinnacle and crown of which is Christianity—but also became the source from which the religions of the pagan world sprang forth; albeit within them, the pure water of religious truth—flowing through the channel of oral tradition—was, as a consequence of sin, corrupted by human fables and monstrous errors.

From what has been said, dear reader, you will easily understand why all religions trace their origins to a direct relationship between man and God—that is, to Divine Revelation—whereas a purely natural religion—that is, one that is a construct of reason alone—is nowhere to be found 49.

Let us now traverse the globe and examine the religions professed by humanity today, in order to discover among them the true religion.

Footnotes

44. Or. XIII Dei Dei cognitione.

45. Ethics I, 417

46. The idea of ​​Divinity is not innate to the human spirit, as ontologists have claimed; yet the thinking individual can—indeed, must—arrive at a knowledge of God’s existence, lest he give the lie to reason. Consequently, theoretical atheism is a rare phenomenon and most often manifests itself as pantheism or skepticism.

47. In the work *Dieu et science* (1912), Fr. Idzi Radziszewski cites this in his booklet *Credo nowożytnego przyrodnika* (Włocławek, 1913, p. 61).

48. Cf. Volume VII of this work, titled *The Mysteries of the Catholic Religion*, Chapter VI.

49. “Religion is based on a certain innate disposition,” said Schanz (I, 136), “but only with Divine cooperation could it develop from it.”

How Great a Treasure the Catholic Religion Is, and Why This Religion Has So Many Adversaries Today

Written by

Doctor Józef Sebastian Pelczar, Bishop of Przemyśl (of the Latin Rite)

Second Revised and Expanded Edition

Preface

to the First Edition “Who is not filled with sorrow at the sight of so many people deprived of faith - unhappy despite their strenuous pursuit of happiness? Hunger consumes their souls, yet they know not - or refuse to acknowledge - the bread of truth, feeding instead upon the poison of falsehood. They wither from thirst, yet they do not hasten to the fount of living water; they live without knowing for what purpose, and they die regretting that they ever lived.

Alas, there is no shortage of such people in our present age - even within our own society - for the pernicious currents of the times do not halt at the borders of the Polish land. Some, paying homage to materialism and positivism, erase the very name of God and the concept of the soul from the ledger of their convictions. Others concern themselves not at all with religious matters, for they deem other pursuits - such as politics, science, public office, business, commerce, or the mere enjoyment of life - to be of supposedly greater importance. Still others construct their own private religions, grounded in a few disconnected - and at times pantheistic - notions of God, or in a barren and soulless sentimentalism. Few indeed - even among the learned - possess a deep understanding of the Catholic faith or are truly imbued with its spirit.

Worse still, unbelief is already knocking at the minds and hearts of the youth; close on its heels follows socialism, and its even more terrifying companion - nihilism.”

Thus I wrote in 1885, upon publishing my *Apologetic Conferences* - a series of lectures delivered in 1884 to the students of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. Since that time, the situation has taken a turn for the worse. The struggle waged by Freemasonry, socialism, and radicalism against religion has grown fiercer, and has even led - in France and Portugal - to the separation of Church and State; that is to say, to the suppression of religious liberty and to the open persecution of the clergy. Within Polish society, unbelief seeks to gain dominion over the educated classes, establishing among them associations of “Independent Thought” to serve as the vanguard of Freemasonry; meanwhile, socialism - which maintains strongholds in the cities and is spearheaded by a shrewd and restless Jewish element - strips the working classes of their faith. Even among many of those who profess to be good Catholics, there is a lack of steadfastness in principle and fidelity to the precepts of the Church; and the greatest dangers of all now loom over the older youth.

It was precisely this situation that prompted me - together with a group of priests - to organize a series of conferences in Przemyśl. ...philosophical and apologetic [writings], and to publish them in print, in order to enlighten people of good will - who sincerely seek the truth - regarding the Catholic religion: its foundations, mysteries, and works. These are treatises based on rigorous research, yet presented in a popular style, such that even older students may benefit from them.

The first part of this work - entitled *What a Great Treasure the Catholic Religion Is, and Why It Has So Many Guides Today* - is set against the backdrop of the *Apologetic Conferences* of 1885; yet, it possesses a broader scope and a lighter form. For in it, I speak directly to the reader’s soul and touch but lightly upon the objections that may arise in the course of reading, reserving detailed and thorough argumentation for subsequent treatises. It serves, as it were, as an introduction to apologetics - one drawn primarily from facts. In the volumes that follow, the subject will be God - the soul - Revelation - Christ the Lord - Christ’s Church - the mysteries of the Faith - and Catholic ethics and civilization. Deign, Dear Reader, to devote your close attention to these treatises - if only with the sole intention of discovering what the Catholic religion might adduce in its own defense; for, indeed - to borrow the words of Tertullian - it desires, above all else, not to be condemned without a hearing. *Hoc unum gestit, ne ignorata damnetur* (The truth only desires not to be condemned unknown. From Tertullian’s *Apologetica*, it refers to this phrase earlier in the text: *liceat veritati vel occulta via tacitarum litterarum ad aures vestras pervenire* - “Let the truth, even though hidden, through [our] secret letters, come to your ears.”). Approach this reading without prejudice and with a sincere desire to discern the truth; and, with the aid of God - for which one must pray - the truth shall reveal itself to you in all its radiance and bring your mind under the blessed dominion of faith.

Przemyśl, March 1911.

PREFACE

TO THE SECOND EDITION

In this second edition, I have added numerous observations drawn from authoritative works and from my own experience. Specifically, I offer a more extensive explanation of the genesis of religion, the Church’s influence on social life, and the necessity of a religious life for the Polish nation.

As for the causes of unbelief, I also recommend reading my work titled *Masonry: Its Essence, Principles, Aims, Origins, Development, Organization, Ritual, and Activities* (fourth edition, Kraków 1914–1917); for there can be no doubt that the influence of Masonry - insofar as it is directed against religion - is both significant and pernicious.

Above all, I commend the reading of these and other apologetic works to mature young people.

Przemyśl, December 8, 1919

The Jews have achieved a great triumph over us by imposing the methods of their own civilization upon a significant portion of our collective life. As a result, we stumble in a vicious circle—a civilizational malady threatening total disintegration (as described in *Byzantine Civilization*). We are mistaken regarding the direction of our own future civilization; we lose our sense of continuity and forfeit our equilibrium. Our capacity to distinguish good from evil—to discern what is beneficial from what is harmful—diminishes within us; the culture of action steadily withers away; and thus, Latin civilization wages its own struggle for survival with ever-diminishing success.

Carl Löwe rightly observed as early as 1835 that “in many respects, we could use an emancipation from Jewish pressure.” 1716

The genesis of this pressure lies in a flawed interpretation of the books of the Old Testament (particularly since the advent of Protestantism)—and, most specifically, in the uncritical acceptance of the theory of “chosenness,” a concept frequently manipulated to forcibly tether contemporary aspirations to the Old Covenant. Dante invented a *second* chosenness for the “Roman people,” while Bossuet grounded his entire vision of Universal History in a Judeocentric framework. The adulation of Israel has so thoroughly befuddled our minds that, if we now wish to shake off the influences of Jewish civilization, we must undertake reforms in our collective life that reach to its very depths. This is a task of extreme difficulty—yet it constitutes the primary condition and indispensable prelude to resolving the Jewish question! First and foremost, we must eliminate all incongruities.

One cannot be civilized in two ways simultaneously. *Aut-aut*: it is a matter of either/or. Either we must de-Judaize ourselves, or we shall perish miserably, suffocated by this Jewish influence. There is no antisemitism inherent in this thesis, but merely a warning against a civilizational hybrid; the same applies to Byzantine or Turanian civilizations. Each of these is fundamentally antisocial in relation to societies rooted in Latin civilization. No civilization can flourish if another has become interwoven with it—let alone when one is confronted with such profound antagonisms as those separating Jewish civilization from Latin civilization.

We must, therefore, launch a vigorous struggle against the “patriotic method” (which is, perhaps, merely *a priori*—W.G.) and against the spirit of collectivism. Before it is too late, we must turn back from the disastrous path we have taken—a path on which we systematically expunge organic structures from our collective life while increasingly mechanizing both the State and society; a path on which we stifle personalism while assiduously cultivating collectivism. Our current form of statehood—totalitarian, intrusive, statistical, and bureaucratic—resembles, in essence, a *Kahal* on a colossal scale. We drown out the voice of historicism, lending our ear instead to the increasingly bizarre fabrications of speculative *a priorism*.

In a manner entirely characteristic of the Jewish outlook, we view the Law as the sole regulator of collective life and the exclusive substitute for individual conscience. Legalism consumes us, legalistic trickery demoralizes us, and the exclusive dominance of casuistry withers our intellect. Our legal codes lead to grave injustices precisely because they attempt to foresee every contingency, yet they shackle the judge, stifling the voice of equity and conscience. In the interpretation of law, a Talmudic method has taken hold—one of subtle sophistry and boundless commentary. The law has truly become a spiderweb for tiny flies, through which, however, the large insects pass with ease; the worst scoundrels run rampant with impunity, all “in accordance with the statutes.” So long as one adheres strictly to the letter of the law! We must break with this practice, lest we lose our very sense of morality.

1716 S I p. XXI

For the “principle” of legal interpretation consists in a precise understanding of the entirety of the provisions, their motives and purposes, and not in their partial and detached application” (1717). Law is essentially a synthesis, analysis has only an auxiliary role; a provision should be interpreted in accordance with the synthesis of law (the opinion of one of the justices of our Supreme Court, who, unfortunately, cannot be persuaded to write). Having embarked on a wrong path in this respect, we have become like the Jews, also in that we have lost the philosophy of law. How deeply must reforms in this area reach!

Our social structure is becoming increasingly flawed. Industry is being vilified, while at the same time trade is being neglected, and crafts are being downright oppressed. In our times, “everything is being done to distance the consumer from the producer as far as possible” (1718) entirely in accordance with Jewish economics. So many erroneous notions have been instilled in us that, with the diligent work of people of good will and sound mind, It will still take a long time for common sense to fade from our eyes.

Our public law, our constitutions, are full of Turanian, Byzantine, and Jewish intrusions. The Polish government act has taken the lead, adopting the Old Testament right of the head of state to appoint his successor.

We will also not endure the costs of statehood, currently existing on the European continent. We are approaching the inevitable, general bankruptcy of states, and then we will face the worst revolution, such that only a later generation will be able to emerge from its depths. We will sink to the levels of Central Asian societies if we delay in building a state of Latin civilization, a civic state based on a posteriori, historicism, personalism, and autonomous organisms. In such a state, foreign civilizations will lose influence and significance.

Our statehood, the judiciary, the study of law, the security of life and property, and finally, all public and private morality, will sink lower and lower, unless We will break with the duality of ethics, with the notion that public life must be exempt from morality, especially politics. At the bottom of this slippery slope lies the state of acivilization; and when we begin to approach it, then Jewish civilization will triumph, the only one remaining viable in Europe.

Longum esset enumerare …(translates to “it would be tedious/long to enumerate.” It is a classic Latin rhetorical device used by ancient and medieval authors (like Pliny the Elder and William of Tyre) to skip over an endless list of examples.) But all our ills, especially those stemming from the transplantation of concepts drawn from Jewish civilization, can only be removed in a civic state based on self-government, a state appropriate to Latin civilization. In today’s all-powerful and bureaucratic state, we will continue to Jewishize ourselves ever more strongly and comprehensively.

The widespread antipathy toward Jews is entirely beside the point here; we have seen to what extent even the most ardent antisemites have become “Judaized” themselves...

From the Paulicians—who regarded Jews as the spawn of Satan—to the French and English novels of our own time (to say nothing of those from further East), one learns nothing but ill of the Jews themselves. From Martha the “Syrian”—Marius’s companion, whom he led and carted about with him (and whose spirit Maurras considers to be the evil spirit of his native region)—to Titus’s Berenice, and on to the English claimant to the throne who was ousted by public opinion: there lie whole heaps of truth, half-truth, and fantasy regarding Jewish intrigues. It is plain to see that they have been liked nowhere.

How, indeed, could one like those who seek to treat everyone else as their “footstool” and their slaves? Those who are enemies to the whole world because their religion commands them to do harm to all? Given this, it is hardly surprising that antisemitism arose! It often turned bloody. From the most ancient times to the most modern, there abounds a wealth of elegiac poetry on this subject—recited in synagogues on the somber anniversaries of massacres—such as that of Rabbi Abigdor Kara from the late 16th century, performed in the Old Synagogue of Prague.

1717 Ks 260 1718 Dmowski in *Przewrót* 1719 Mr 225, 226

For centuries, both sides have complained and lamented against one another over inevitable misunderstandings; yet, there is also no shortage of accusations—and valid ones at that—that weigh heavily against the Jews in matters of politics. In Spain, they summoned the Moors; in Poland, they conspired to disrupt parliamentary sessions; in every country, they patronized revolutions. Even in England, voices of indignation are being raised against them. Chesterton explains their influence in much the same way as everywhere else: Half the cabinet, he notes, is indebted to Jews; one dignitary has been bribed, another has married a wealthy Jewish woman, while other grandees receive shares in fictitious mines, and so on. He laments that English Jews, through their influence, often steer the English “in directions where there is no serious English interest whatsoever,” but only the interests of Jewish speculators. And should a disaster befall the “English standard” in the process, it is met with scornful mockery from those very same Jews who are “sucking England dry.” If even in England people are now speaking of them in this manner...

It seems that, in the wake of the current Second World War, the significance of Jews in Europe will temporarily increase substantially; yet, it is equally beyond doubt that, simultaneously and in parallel, antisemitism will also intensify and become widespread. It is in this very circumstance that its strength will lie. At the same time, however, the future power of Jewry would be severely undermined were Berlin to be truly neutralized. If Germany is rendered unable to rearm for another war—if, in the face of a pacified Europe, militarism ceases to be a factor—then the economic hegemony of Jews over Europe will likewise vanish, and the greatest Jewish fortunes will begin to totter. An Israel thus economically weakened would be all the more vulnerable to the pervasiveness of antisemitism.

Until now, antisemitism has tended to be a localized phenomenon; It would flare up more intensely, becoming active—now in one country, now in another; lands where silence had once reigned would seem to turn philosemitic, and indeed, their governments would frequently take a stand against any state “practicing religious oppression.” But what will happen when antisemitism begins to manifest simultaneously everywhere—when, in opposition to the “International,” an international accord takes shape; when a certain slogan—one by which Jews have held all of Europe, as it were, under siege for two generations—is paraphrased and transformed into the rallying cry: “Antisemites of all countries, unite!”? At that moment, the animosity toward Jews can no longer be attributed merely to religious or racial persecution; everyone will realize that what is at stake is a struggle against an entire, distinct civilization—that the Jewish question is neither religious nor racial, but civilizational.

In the civilizational sense of the word, who would not be an antisemite? Who, anywhere or in any country, would crave a civilizational “Judaization”? It is easier to find a Jew who chooses to assimilate into Latin civilization. It is difficult to imagine that a native-born European would consciously wish to “Judaize” himself; there are, however, Jews who quite consciously wish to “de-Judaize” themselves.

Is it wise to hinder them in this? A fundamental struggle against all converts is something monstrous. Any Jew who refuses to do harm to a Gentile is, in effect, de-Judaizing himself—for in doing so, he acts contrary to the precepts of his own religion. Such a Jew draws closer to Christianity, even if initially unconsciously. By force of consequence, he may subsequently become a convert. One must carefully distinguish them from those who merely accept baptism while changing nothing within themselves.

If we wish to resolve the Jewish question, we must purge antisemitism of its errors. Unfortunately, it harbors so many of them that one might reasonably entertain serious doubts as to whether it has not often proven more harmful to us than to the Jews.

That form of antisemitism characterized by the slogan “Beat the Jew!” unconditionally inflicts great harm upon us ourselves. Morality is absolutely binding—even within the context of antisemitism. Everything that stems from immoral premises ultimately turns against its creators.

1720 Brd 320 1721 Ch 115, 116.

Let us cast aside all “racism” as a viewpoint that affronts both morality and reason. Let us not despise anyone simply for having been born a Jew. What fault is it of his—and should it be counted as a merit—that someone else was not born into Jewry? Justice, however, demands an equal standard and reciprocity. Since Jews regard us as cattle, it is hardly surprising that reactions against this should arise in our midst! We also ask: what merit lies in the mere fact of having been born a Jew?

Here I conclude, and I reiterate:

Let us cultivate among ourselves but a single civilization—exclusively Latin—and Jewish civilization will of its own accord recede from public life; it will merely vegetate and wither away within it. After a time, Jews will be neither numerous enough nor wealthy enough to continue constituting a “Jewish Question”—especially since the best among them will have ceased to be Jews. Latin civilization, however, must be sufficiently robust to exert a power of attraction far greater than it has hitherto possessed.

The present volume eschews all claims to mere “topicality.” Its aim is neither to build bridges toward mutual understanding nor to foment discord. I sought simply to analyze the Jewish Question from a scholarly perspective—and it seems to me that this constitutes the first attempt of its kind.

Kraków, September 8, 1943

Professor Feliks Koneczny