Blessed Antonio's Rosmini's work must be considered prophetic for us today. He was writing about the changes in Italy, the suppression of the Church, the divisions between the clergy and the people.
When his writings first appeared, some were put on the Index, but after consideration, Rosmini's works, re-examined, were accepted by the Vatican. Some of his works are still not considered worthy of reading. Some of his ideas were condemned by Pope Leo XIII, and many of his ideas were not supported by the Jesuits. However, this book provides insights into the problems we see today of the people in the Church, the laity, not supporting the temporal needs and, indeed, authority, of the Church.
One may disagree with some of his statements, but one should take his insights seriously.
Several points to consider: one, the necessity for temporalities in the Church; two, the necessity for trusting in Divine Providence and not entertaining modern things such as trust funds, expensive lifestyles, (as seen by too many American bishops and even some cardinals); three, the necessity for the Church to provide for the poor and not the State, if separated from religion; four, the lack of support of the laity for the Church as a serious problem both for the Church and for the souls of those who do not tithe.
I have written on this blog several times that the Church in America has become too "middle-class".
Rosmini would agree. By the way, his situation reminds us that not all writings of the saints have the same authority, unless these saints are either the Fathers of the Church or the Doctors of the Church. The infallibility of canonization does not sift down to all the writings of the saints in general.
The Pope Emeritus saw fit to declare Rosmini Blessed in 2007.
147. We need to realise that when
an idea or a form impresses itself on human intelligence and imagination, it
becomes the norm or model of all other thoughts and ways of acting capable of
absorbing it. Notions unable to assimilate it become subordinate and accessory
to it, like dependents crowded around their master. In the Church's early history,
unity was the dominant idea in christian minds. As a result, everything the
faithful and clergy said and did in church dispositions, in their reciprocal
care of one another, and in the administration of possessions was illumined
and governed by the unity of Christ. Feudalism, on the other hand, was founded
on the totally different idea of division, which springs from the notion
of lordship or dominion. This system governing the temporal order impressed
its fundamental form of lordship deeply in the minds of ecclesiastics with disastrous
consequences for the Church.
148. Force, violence, personal valour
and lordship constituted the norm for the barbarians who conquered Europe. Little
by little the Church imbued their uncouth minds with its own contrary idea.
Naturally, the opposed notions struggled for mastery, and the conflict took
on an aspect common to every engagement between two societies dominated by contrasting
ideas. On the one hand, they fight quite openly, each side using its own weapons;
on the other, they attempt some kind of conciliation and fusion. Each idea becomes
partly subject to the other, although they preserve their mutual incompatibility.
In our case, barbarian governments,
while oppressing the Church, tried to subject and remodel it completely in accordance
with their idea of mutual, individual lordship sustained by force. Almost unwittingly,
however, they absorbed intimately the contrary idea of service, morality, unity
and spirituality proper to the Church. Hence the contradictory features of actions
which expressed immense piety and generosity towards the Church, and extremely
injurious despotism and irreverence. The type of action depended upon subjection
to their own original outlook, or to that acquired from the Church's teaching.
The same occurred with the clergy.
They taught ferocious barbarians the meekness of the gospel, opening their minds
to the ecclesial idea of unifying charity. At the same time, they themselves
suffered in the great conflict by absorbing the opposite idea. The result was
an extraordinary mixture from within clerical ranks of holy, heroic efforts
to maintain the unity of Christ, combined with sacrilegious disorders, degrading
abasement and individualistic tendencies destroying the unity of the christian,
ecclesial community. Conflict between the two ideas, and contradictory actions
in both temporal and ecclesiastical orders, is characteristic of the middle
ages, and is alone sufficient to explain all the occurrences of the period,
but especially the strife between empire and Church. The Church and its dominant
idea can never perish because Christ's word lives on, although heaven and earth
may pass away. Whenever the idea of violent, temporal domination and disunion
- so contrary to the idea proper to the Church - prevails and compromises the
very existence of the clergy, the Church rises like an awakening giant, repels
the invader and renews in herself and in her ministers the idea on which her
life depends (29).
149. All this helps to explain the
vicissitudes suffered by church temporalities. Medieval lords, acting in accordance
with their idea of individuality and lordship, not only looked upon the Church's
unfettered possessions as fiefs, but appropriated them, disposed of them as
though they were their own, bestowed them on lay people, and alienated them.
Usurpations of this kind provided ample fuel for conflict between rulers and
the Church which fought the abuses with conciliar enactments, papal decrees
and canonical penalties.
Bishops loyal to the rulers absorbed
the idea of individuality along with their fiefs. It led them to dispose
of church properties as their own possessions. Unmindful of common ownership,
prelates alienated church temporalities which they enfeoffed, exchanged, bestowed
on laymen, and spent on high living and making war. The Church replied with
innumerable canons and decrees whose effect was to tie the Church still closer
to the alienation, administration and disposal of church property. Simultaneously,
the lower clergy were divided from the bishops, and had to be protected assiduously
by the Church against the despotism and cruelty of their pastors. One consequence
was the frequent dissension between chapters and bishops, which often lives
on today; another was the irremovability of parish priests, which deprives bishops
of the power to remedy promptly the scandals and spiritual afflictions imposed
on the people.
150. But the Church's divine Founder
did not want the principle of communion in church temporalities to perish, either
relative to their possession or to their administration and use. Monasticism
and religious life, which make express, public profession of this saving principle,
rose and flourished at this time. The faithful, guided by christian instinct
that never fails them, became more inclined to bestow their offerings and donations
on the regular clergy who upheld the ancient requirement, than upon the secular
clegy. When the 3rd Lateran Council (1179) decreed the restitution of tithes
enfeoffed on laypeople, the latter restored them for the most part to the monasteries
rather than to the churches owning them. This was later permitted by the popes,
provided the local bishop gave his consent (30).
151. A third, precious requirement
in ancient days was that "the clergy should use church temporalities only
for the strict needs of their maintenance; the remainder to be applied to pious
works, especially in alms for the poor." Christ founded the apostolate
on poverty, and on abandonment to Providence which would have moved the faithful
to support those evangelising them. He himself was the perfect examplar: "Foxes
have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere
to lay his head" (31), and he made
his own way of life the condition for those wanting to follow him. Peter had
abandoned even his humble nets in order to follow his naked Master. Although
the apostolic college had its own fund supported by the offerings of the faithful,
the money was held in common as an example for later Church practice. When the
paralytic asked him for alms, Peter could reply: Argentum et aurum non est
mihi ["I have no silver and gold"] (32).
Needs were satisfied by the apostles' right to live in the homes of the welcoming
faithful who thus received more than they gave. St. Paul instructed his disciple,
Timothy, in the same way of life: "There is great gain in godliness with
contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything
out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content"
(33).
Hence in the finest period of the
Church, entering the ranks of the clergy was equivalent to a profession of evangelical
poverty (34). The phrase "secular clergy" had not been invented,
and appeared only in times of ecclesiastical decadence when the clergy seemed
to have sided with the world. The profession of poverty was for long the glory
of the priestly ministry; the majority of men called to the priesthood abandoned
their possessions or gave them away to the poor. As Isidore of Pelusium said:
tum voluntaria paupertate gloriabuntur ["they will glory in voluntary
poverty"] (35).
The administration and distribution
of the Church's wealth could thus be entrusted to sincerely disinterested persons
acting as trustees for the poor. Julian Pomerius, after speaking of the voluntary
poverty of bishops Paulinus of Nola and Hilary of Arles, who abandoned great
wealth to become poor men of Chirst, adds: "It is easy to understand, therefore,
that holy men like this (who had renounced everything to become followers of
Christ) were perfectly aware that the Church's possessions are made up simply
of the devotion of the faithful, of satisfaction for sins, and of what belongs
to the poor. They never used this wealth for their own benefit as though it
belonged to them, but accepted it in trust for the poor. The Church holds its
possessions in common with those who have nothing, and cannot therefore share
them with people who already have enough of their own. Benefiting the well-off
means throwing away what is distributed" (36).
The clergy, as poor men themselves,
took their maintenance from the common purse proper to the needy. The bishop,
as first amongst the poor and the one responsible for the distribution, could
rightly take something for himself (37)
and the lower clergy. This rule was so deeply rooted in people's hearts that
it was not judged fitting for a priest to live off the Church if he had his
own patrimony. Because he did not belong to the poor, he had no right to depend
upon the Church, nor take from the needy what was theirs. This was correct,
and reaffirmed by Julian: "Those with their own money, who still want a
share in the distribution, sin gravely when they accept what belongs to the
poor. The Holy Spirit is surely speaking about the clergy when he says: 'They
feed on the sin of my people.' The poor, who have nothing, receive the nourishment
they need, not sins; the rich do not receive nourishment - they have that already
- but take upon themselves the sins of others. The same applies to poor people
who can work to support themselves; they should not presume to take what belongs
to the weak and sick.
The Church should not have to disburse
assistance to those not in need, lest she should be unable to help the indigent.
And those who serve the Church are altogether too worldly if they imagine they
should receive earthly wages (38) rather
than eternal rewards... If a minister of the Church has not enough to live on,
the Church gives him what is necessary but nothing over and above, so that he
may not lose the reward which he can now look forward to with certainty, as
the Lord himself has promised. As for those who ask for nothing, but nevertheless
live off the Church without any real need - well, it is not for me to say what
kind of sin they commit by depriving the poor of their food. People like this
should assist the Church with what they have, not burden her with what they
waste as if they had the right to live in the community without intending to
feed the poor, help our guests, or use their own money for our daily needs"
(39).
152. Prior to the middle ages abuses
against this noble requirement were the result of human weakness; they were
not characteristic of clerical life which, in fact, repudiated them. But the
standard could not be maintained, generally speaking, when the Church's possessions,
having lost their original nature, fell under the feudal system, and the principal
churchmen themselves became feudatories. From that moment, the disbursement
of goods was governed by another law; instead of flowing down to the poor, they
either remained stationary or finished in the rapacious hands of the local lord.
The idea of "trust", the first concept characterising the possession
of church temporalities, perished or at least lost its force for many; absolute
ownership prevailed, and sacred trust was violated.
153. The division of common holdings
into benefices assigned to individual clerics also prevented episcopal distribution
of subsidies to the clergy in proportion to their labours and deserts. A human
stimulus to the fulfilment of their sacred duties was thus lost to the clergy,
who became financially independent of their bishops.(40)
Another serious disadvantage was the decline of the splendid example of public,
ministerial maintenance of the poor on the part of the Church, which inevitably
led also to neglect of spiritual instruction for the needy. The constant care
taken by the Church for the poor, whom it considered its very own, had enabled
its material assistance to be viewed as spiritual instruction, so that the needy
had a twofold stimulus for gratitude towards her maternal care. She merited
and received love and reverence as mother of body and soul.
But with the withdrawal of the clergy
from this work, the daily practice of charity was, as it were, secularised.
Separate institutions were established for various works of charity which gradually
came under the control of lay people. In the designs of Providence the great
advantage here was the immense increase of zeal amongst Christians in the exercise
of works of charity; on the other hand, works of charity, having been cut off
from the spiritual wisdom proper to the Church, now became exercises in philanthropy
without reference to God and the salvation of souls. The seed was sown for modern
social assistance, and only when the clergy renews its generosity and largeheartedness
will the characteristics of divine love be restored
