The Ralliement at the Origin of Vatican II’s Pastoral Magisterium
In Immortale Dei (1st November 1885), Leo XIII condemned the “new law” deriving from the institutions born of the Revolution. In Au milieu des sollicitudes (16 February 1892), the same Leo XIII obliged French Catholics to rally to the IIIrd Republic. We will not delve into the reasons he gave. But we can see in these instructions to rally to a State that did not consider God’s law to be normative, an anticipation of Vatican II adopting these principles of the new law in the form of religious freedom: n° 2 of Dignitatis humanæ makes it the State’s duty to allow (not prevent) the peaceful diffusion of truth and falsehood on an equal footing. This is tantamount to enshrining the intrinsic religious neutrality of the state, a considerable innovation.[1]
As is well known, some Catholics refused to follow Leo XIII’s directives. But to justify this refusal, it does not suffice to say that, in issuing these instructions, Au milieu des sollicitudes stepped outside the field of faith and morals in which the Pope exercises his magisterium. Leo XIII’s intention was to lay down a rule of a moral order, in the most important area of human life on earth, that of politics. He clearly stated: “Such an attitude [that of acceptance] is the safest and most salutary course of action for all Frenchmen, in their civil relations with the republic, which is the present government of their nation.” Certainly a prudential (and formidably imprudent!) directive, which cannot be compared with the obligation imposed by Dignitatis humanæ not to prevent the spread of religious error.
Yet wasn’t this a similarly “pastoral” teaching, prior to the term being coined? It is in the nature of the law in general, and eminently of the law of faith, that the substance of that law – the teaching given – and its form – the authority with which the teaching is enunciated – are intrinsically linked. That’s why Vatican II’s innovative ecclesiological teaching on religious freedom, which clearly belongs to liberal Catholicism, could only be accompanied by a new kind of authority – in fact, an absence of definitive authority – which has been called “pastoral” teaching, and which also makes good on liberalism’s repugnance toward all dogmatic authority.
It can therefore be argued that the Ralliement directives, anticipating Dignitatis humanæ, were an “archaeo-pastoral” teaching. In support of this hyposthesis, one can cite the concluding chapter of Miguel Ayuso’s book Cristo Rey. Teología, filosofía y política ante el centenario de la encíclica Quas primas[2], a French translation of which is currently being published by L’Homme nouveau. This final chapter by Félix María Martín Antoniano focuses on “The political-diplomatic pastoral teaching of the pre-conciliar popes in relation to the revolutionary powers with regard to Spanish Catholics.”
F.M. Martin Antoniano, who expressly claims to be a Carlist, describes three “pastoral stages” which helped prevent the possible restoration of a traditional-style state: the pastoral stage of Pius IX, which saw the “recognition [by the Holy See] of the new liberal powers” (Isabella II, Amédée Ist, the Ist Republic, Alphonse XII); the pastoral stage of Leo XIII, during which the “union of Catholics for the acceptance of the new liberal powers” was advocated; and the pastoral stage of Saint Pius X, which favored “participation in electoral processes in accordance with the theory of the lesser evil”. The author dwells at length on the pastoral action of Leo XIII, in particular his invitation to Spanish Catholics, in the encyclical Cum multa of December 8, 1882, to turn away from the Carlist party (supporters of Don Carlos, the anti-liberal pretender) and, in consequence, to rally to the liberal monarchy of Isabella II. Carlism was not explicitly named by the encyclical, but was recognizable as the opinion “which identifies religion with a political party and confounds them to the point of considering the whole of another party as no longer deserving the name of Catholic.”[3] The theme of Cum multa was to be found again ten years later in Au milieu des sollicitudes: the necessary union of Catholics for the supposed good of religion. This was followed by an authentic interpretation of Cum multa by the Apostolic Nuncio, Monsignor Rampolla, “the true architect of Roman political pastoral teaching”, says F.M. Martin Antoniano, whom Leo XIII would later make his Secretary of State, who drove home the theme of obedience to constituted powers.
Au milieu des sollicitudes, “pastoral” teaching before the term was coined. To which we might add that its non-acceptance by some Catholics heralded the opposition to Vatican II. In France at any rate, the posture of being “more Catholic than the Pope” was thus established. In fact, the founding element – by way of backlash – of what has been called “integral Catholicism”, at the heart, at least initially, of the non-acceptance of the last Council and above all of the new liturgy, is to be found in the Ralliement directives. Too little emphasis is usually placed on the shock caused by Pope Pecci’s stance. Seventy years later, it would prove to be a real earthquake.
Abbé Claude Barthe
[1] “If it is true that the dominant idea of Leo XIII, as his biographer [Charles T’Serclaes, Le Pape Léon XIII: sa vie, son action religieuse, politique et sociale, Desclée, de Brouwer, 1894, t 3 pp. 714-715] writes, was that of ‘reconciling the modern world with the Church’, the pastoral project which failed during his pontificate came to fruition with the Second Vatican Council” (Roberto de Mattei, Le Ralliement de Léon XIII, Cerf, 2016, p. 264).
[2] Dykinson, 2024.
[3] See also: Miguel Ayuso, La crisis de la cultura política cathólica, Dykinson SL, 2021, especially pp. 126-130.