Download Italy: the church and the Risorgimento

15
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
fr ank coppa
The Risorgimento, culminating in the creation of the Italian Kingdom and
the collapse of the temporal power, sparked a papal Counter-Risorgimento.
The clash between Italian nationalism and the Catholic Church from the
restoration of 1815 to the seizure of Rome in 1870 was threefold: ideological,
political and religious. This chapter probes into the roots and the flowering of
all three from the pontificate of Pius VII (1800–23) to that of Pius IX (1846–78). It
explores the confrontation between the national Risorgimento and the Catholic
Counter-Risorgimento – and the far-reaching consequences for both.
The conflict between the papacy and patriots in Italy had deep roots, as
Lorenzo Valla in the fifteenth century and Niccolò Machiavelli in the sixteenth both challenged the temporal power. Nationalist suspicion of Rome
transcended the literati during the course of the Napoleonic wars, when patriots confronted a church aligned to the conservative order. Although Pius VII
rejected the invitation of Tsar Alexander of Russia (1801–25) to join his ‘Holy
Alliance’, he adhered to much of its conservative, antinationalist programme.
In turn, the allied powers viewed the pope as a fellow victim of Napoleonic
aggression, returning most of his territory, with the exception of one part of
Ferrara that was transferred to Austria, and Avignon and the Venaissan which
were retained by Paris. Despite these favourable terms, in June 1815 Cardinal
Ercole Consalvi, the papal secretary of state, issued a formal protest against
these minor losses, seconded by Pius in September.1 It represented a precursor
of Rome’s unyielding stance in the ensuing nationalist age.
When the Spanish revolution of 1820 inspired upheaval elsewhere, the ultraconservative party in the curia, the zelanti, pointed to the papacy as the antidote
to revolution. Following the outbreak of a carbonari revolution in Naples early
in July 1820, Consalvi opted for pragmatism rather than conservative solidarity.
1 Erasmo Pistolesi, Vita del Sommo Pontefice Pio VII, 4 vols. (Rome: F. Bourlie, 1824), vol. iv,
pp. 106–16; Edward Hertslet, The map of Europe by treaty, 4 vols. (London: Butterworths,
1875–91), vol. i, pp. 267–8.
233
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
Announcing his obligation to protect the Faith, he accorded the constitutional
regime in Naples de facto recognition.2 Metternich urged Rome to condemn
the carbonari, considering it complementary to Austria’s military intervention
against the Neapolitan revolution. The pope and his secretary of state insisted
that spiritual strictures were reserved for those societies manifestly opposed to
the Catholic religion. Only when the Austrians uncovered the sect’s initiation
ceremonies, which ridiculed church ritual, did Rome act. In mid-September,
Pius VII launched an excommunication against the carbonari for their blasphemous misuse of Roman ritual. Justified on spiritual grounds, its motivation
was political, and as such proved a failure. While it did little to suppress the
unrest or undermine the sects, it alienated Italian nationalists by identifying
the papacy with Austria and reaction.3 Pius VII, assisted by Consalvi, balanced
his religious responsibilities with political reality to the end of his pontificate
in 1823.
The 1823 conclave was dominated by the zelanti cardinals who disparaged
the political realism of Consalvi and Pius VII. Austria’s Metternich, on the other
hand, invoked a moderate successor. When the election of the intransigent
Cardinal Gabriele Severoli appeared certain, Metternich authorised Cardinal
Giuseppe Albani, representing Austrian interests in the conclave, to exercise
its veto. The frustrated cardinals lined up behind another zelanti, securing the
election of Cardinal Annibale della Genga, who assumed the name Leo XII.4
The new pope shared the zelanti views on church–state relations, and in his first
encyclical (May 1824) condemned dechristianisation, indifferentism, toleration
and freemasonry, tracing contemporary problems to the contempt for church
authority.5 He warned the bishops of the sects and railed against the indifferent,
who under the pretext of toleration undermined the faith. Leo proved a jealous
guardian of the Holy See’s prerogatives, continuing the centralising tendencies
of his predecessor while abandoning his political moderation.
Pope Leo initially sought to safeguard the papacy by invoking the support of
the faithful. During the course of 1826, he moved away from Lamennais’s idealistic notion of relying on the devotion of the Catholic masses towards the more
realistic support of the armies of the conservative powers. In mid-March, he
denounced the masons and other secret societies, renewing the decrees of his
predecessors against them. Cardinal Tommaso Bernetti ventured to Vienna, St
Petersburg, Paris and Berlin, assuring these governments that Leo renounced
2
3
4
5
Brady, Rome and the Neapolitan revolution, p. 13.
Reinerman, ‘Metternich and the papal condemnation’, pp. 60–9.
Colapietra, ‘Il diario Brunelli’, pp. 76–146.
Ubi Primum in Carlen (ed.), Papal pronouncements, p. 21.
234
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
Ultramontanism, while placating the powers by removing Father Ventura, a
disciple of Lamennais, from his teaching position. Metternich was perturbed
by the death of Leo in February 1829, urging his successor to continue to
collaborate with Austria.
The Austrian ambassador sought the election of a moderate pope. On
31 March 1829, the 68-year-old Francesco Saverio Castiglioni, supported by
both the French and the Austrians, was elected. The new pope showed himself well disposed towards antinationalist Austria. Devoting himself to the
renewal of the church, he left the task of governing the Papal States to Cardinal
Giuseppe Albani. In his first encyclical (May 1829), Pius VIII denounced its enemies. Commencing with a condemnation of those who attacked the church’s
spiritual mission, he condemned indifferentism as a contrivance of contemporary sophists. The encyclical censured the growing menace of the secret
societies, which opposed God and princes, denouncing them as a threat to
church and state.6 Pius thus tied the papacy to the restoration regimes, and
the price paid for their moral and military support was the animosity of their
enemies.
Pius VIII was distressed that the July 1830 revolution in France struck at
the church as well as the monarchy, but shied from sanctioning Lamennais’s
call for the separation of church and state. To make matters worse, at the end
of August a revolution erupted in Belgium, in which Catholics co-operated
with liberals in overturning the regime created by the Powers at Vienna.
Only after Vienna extended formal diplomatic recognition to Louis-Philippe
in early September did Rome follow suit. Although Pius belatedly displayed
the pragmatism earlier shown by Pius VII, Rome’s reliance on the restoration
order made it a target for patriots in the Italian peninsula. The July Revolution
inspired the carbonari in Italy to prepare for another insurrection. The new
pope, Gregory XVI (1831–46), protected the temporal and spiritual power of
the papacy by aligning his state if not the church with the conservative powers
in Europe, and above all Austria. Austrian intervention proved decisive in the
suppression of the Italian revolution, but aggravated rather than mitigated
nationalist resentment.
When Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti assumed the chair of Peter in June 1846
as Pius IX, the Papal States remained on the verge of revolution. Little had been
done in Rome to eliminate the discontent festering since the revolutionary
upheaval of 1830–1. The major powers – England, France, Austria, Russia
6 Carlen (ed.), The papal encyclicals, vol. i, pp. 221–4; Fremantle (ed.), The papal encyclicals,
p. 123.
235
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
and Prussia – had proposed a series of reforms, including the creation of
a consultative assembly to provide advice on governmental matters. Their
suggestions were ignored as Pope Gregory condemned liberal Catholicism
and nationalism in his Mirari Vos of 1832,7 and later denounced the false idols
of ‘modern civilisation’.8 Gregory resisted even technical innovations such as
the railways, provoking resentment throughout his state. In 1837, Viterbo was
stricken, while in 1843 and 1844 the Legations exploded.9 Moderates believed
revolution imminent and considered reform the antidote to an impending
catastrophe.10
The new pope appreciated the need for change. As bishop of Imola (1832–
46), he had explored the prospect of conciliation between Catholicism and
liberal-national principles. Although far from a revolutionary, Mastai proved
critical of the ponderous Roman administration which provoked the constant
round of revolt and repression. He suggested that the condition of the Papal
States could be improved by infusing a bit of common sense and Christian
justice in the government. Theology, Mastai observed, was not opposed to
the development of science and industry.11 He catalogued his suggestions in
a work entitled ‘Thoughts on the administration of the Papal States’ (1845),
which saw the need for some collegiate body to advise and co-ordinate the
administration.12
Once pope, Pius proposed a series of innovations encouraging liberals and
nationalists such as Minghetti and Cavour, while inspiring the revolutionary
Mazzini. Pio Nono’s July amnesty of political prisoners electrified Rome and
Italy. To the delight of liberals extraordinary tribunals were abolished, while
railway lines were projected and telegraph companies chartered. The pope
reformed the collection of revenue and the management of finances, while
opening a number of offices to laypeople. Unlike his predecessor, Pio Nono
allowed his subjects to participate in the scientific congresses that were convoked in Italy. To reduce unemployment he urged the provinces to provide
public work projects for his subjects.13 He relieved the burdens imposed on
Momigliano (ed.), Tutte le encicliche, pp. 186–95.
E Principio certo, in Carlen (ed.), Papal pronouncements, vol. i, pp. 25–6.
Archivio di Stato di Roma (ASR), Fondo Famiglia Antonelli (FFA), busta 1, fascicolo 125.
Metternich-Winneburg (ed.), Memoirs, vol. vii, p. 246; British and Foreign State Papers
(BFSP) vol. xxxvi (1847–8), p. 1195.
11 P. D. Pasolini (ed.), Giuseppe Pasolini, Memorie.    –  (Turin: Bocca, 1887), p. 57.
12 Serafini, Pio Nono, vol. i, pp. 1397–1406.
13 Atti del sommo pontefice Pio IX, felicemente regnante. Parte seconda che comprende I Motuproprii, chirografi editti, notificazioni, ec. per lo stato pontificio, 2 vols. (Rome: Tipografia
delle Belle Arti, 1857), vol. i, pp. 8–10, 15.
7
8
9
10
236
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
the Jews of Rome and even proposed the creation of a Council of State.14
News of his reforms was facilitated by a revised press law which tolerated the
expression of liberal and nationalist sentiments.
These changes delighted liberals and nationalists such as Massimo
D’Azeglio, and Leopoldo Galeotti.15 From Montevideo, Garibaldi proclaimed
Pius the political messiah of the peninsula, while in Turin, Gioberti prophesied
that Pius had opened a new age for Italy.16 His reforms were enthusiastically
received, provoking manifestations of public gratitude. Wherever he appeared,
the pope was greeted as the father of his people. Pius perceived no danger when
the Romans applauded their prince, who was also head of the church.17 Others
saw things differently. The pope had a responsibility to transfer full sovereignty
to his successor, Metternich warned, and should not barter any of it away. The
Austrian minister predicted that if he continued pandering to the radicals and
nationalists, he would be forced out of Rome.18
Initially Pius did not share the conservative fears, preferring reform to reaction. His optimism was not shared by his own secretary of state, Pasquale
Gizzi, who, like Metternich, appreciated the danger that Italian nationalism
posed to the Papal States and the papacy. Gizzi had reservations about both
the national and constitutional goals of the reformist party. Pius believed that
the creation of a tariff league to co-ordinate economic activity in the peninsula
would address its economic problems while quelling the growing national
sentiment in Italy. To satisfy those who called for some form of representative body, he announced the intention of forming an advisory council. Gizzi
accepted both proposals with the understanding that the tariff league would
not assume a political dimension, while the consultative chamber would not
become a legislative chamber. Assured by the pope, in April 1847, Gizzi published the edict on the Consulta di Stato.19
At the end of 1847, Pius introduced a measure of ministerial responsibility
while granting laymen access to several ministerial posts. However, he had
reservations about granting liberty of conscience to all inhabitants of the
Papal States and balked at the laicisation of the administration. ‘I have done
enough’, he exclaimed, ‘I will do no more.’20 It was easier said than done. He
14 ASR, FFA, busta 3.
15 Coppa, ‘Realpolitik and conviction’, p. 582.
16 Archivio Segreto del Vaticano (ASV), Archivio Particolare Pio IX, oggetti vari, 412; Maiolo
(ed.), Pio IX, p. 59.
17 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sardegna, Sovrani.
18 Metternich-Winneburg (ed.), Memoirs, vol. vii, p. 572.
19 Atti del Sommo Pontefice Pio IX, vol. i, pp. 47–8.
20 Nielsen, History of the papacy, vol. ii, p. 142.
237
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
responded to the cries for a constitution by warning that his subjects should
not make requests which he could not, ought not and did not mean to grant.
He was equally adamant about creating a civic guard. Finally, he resisted the
call to champion the liberation of the peninsula, considering the creation of an
Italian league presided over by the pope a utopian scheme. None the less, he
found it hard to resist the popular clamour and eventually persuaded Gizzi to
authorise the controversial guard, but the cardinal, fearing the consequences,
resigned a few days later.
Pius reconsidered his stance on constitutionalism following the outbreak
of revolution in Palermo and Paris early in 1848, warning he could not violate
his obligations as head of the universal church. Only when a special commission of ecclesiastics saw no theological hindrances to the introduction of
constitutionalism in the political realm did the pope proceed. Pressured by
events, the pope also changed course on the question of the league, and in
1848 moved beyond the commercial league he had originally sanctioned to
accept the political and national one earlier deemed inadmissible.21
The pope’s subjects demanded more, calling upon him to launch a war of
national liberation against Austria. In response, Pius allowed his ministers to
appeal to the Turin government to provide a military man to organise a papal
military force. ‘The events which these two months have seen succeeding and
pressing on each other with so rapid change are not the work of man’, Pius
announced to the people of Italy in an address of 30 March.22 These words
appeared to foreshadow an active papal involvement in the national crusade to
liberate Italy, seemingly confirmed by the movement of his troops northward.
Inwardly, Pius had reservations about declaring war on part of his flock and
resented the proclamation of General Giovanni Durando, which labelled the
war not only national but Christian. These words created consternation in
Austria, where Princess Metternich lamented that the pope blessed the troops
dispatched to conquer their provinces.23 Deeming his first responsibility to
the church, Pius feared that his association with the war of liberation might
provoke a schism in Germany. He was stunned by the April 1848 dispatch
from his nuncio in Vienna, which reported that Catholics there held him
responsible for the war. Although he understood that Italian nationalism was
sweeping the peninsula, Pius proclaimed that he could not declare war against
anyone.
21 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Oggetti Vari, n. 368.
22 BFSP vol. xxxvii (1848–9), p. 981.
23 Metternich-Winneburg (ed.), Memoirs, vol. viii, p. 15.
238
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
Pius considered himself a priest first, and only secondly a temporal ruler, and
acted accordingly. When his ministers urged him to enter the war of national
liberation, he consulted a number of theologians to determine if this would be
legitimate.24 A majority considered it improper, and he followed their advice
rather than that of his cabinet. His reluctance to enter the war, announced in
an allocution of 29 April 1848, provoked a revolution in Rome and his flight
from the capital at the end of November 1848. It was a flight from his subjects
and his earlier reformism. Patriots denounced the papal refusal to declare war
a betrayal, and perceived his flight as an abdication.
These events turned Pius against constitutionalism, liberalism and nationalism and those states identified with these movements. Liberalism he branded
a dangerous delusion.25 The theory of nationalism he found as criminal as
that of socialism. Pius defended his decision not to assume leadership of the
national movement. ‘Who can doubt that the Pope must follow a path which
extols the honour of God and never that sought by the major demagogues of
Europe?’, he asked, adding, ‘And with what conscience could the Pope have
supported such a national movement, knowing . . . it would only lead to the
profound abyss of religious incredulity and social dissolution?’26
Papal abandonment of the national crusade provoked resentment among
liberals and patriots. The Piedmontese, distraught by their defeat, tended to
blame Rome for the catastrophe. Count Cavour’s newspaper Il Risorgimento
reported that the pope’s ‘betrayal’ proved crucial, and Italians could only conclude that the national movement and the papal temporal power were incompatible.27 The hostility was mutual. Pius proved suspicious of the Piedmontese,
who urged him to negotiate with the ‘rebels’, and assumed leadership of the
national movement. In mid-February, the acting secretary of state invoked the
intervention of the Catholic powers: Austria, France, Spain and the Kingdom
of the Two Sicilies, to restore the states of the church. Piedmont and France,
seeking reconciliation rather than revenge, urged the pope to retain his earlier
reforms, but Rome balked. Pius cited the incompatibility of constitutionalism with the free exercise of his spiritual power. While the Austrians defeated
the Piedmontese at the battle of Novara (23 March 1849), the French Republic authorised an expedition to Rome. Louis Napoleon claimed he sought to
24 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Oggetti Vari, n. 415.
25 A. Rosmini, Della missione a Roma (Turin: Paravia, 1854), pp. 143–4; ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Francia, Particolari, n. 18; Segreteria di Stato Esteri [SSE], corrispondenza
da Gaeta e Portici, 1848–50, rubrica 248, fascicolo 2, sottofascicolo 4.
26 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Particolare, n. 30.
27 Il Risorgimento, 23 November 1848.
239
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
re-establish constitutional government, and pressed the pope to do so.28 The
French catalogued the essential reforms, including an amnesty, a law code patterned on their own, abolition of the tribunal of the Holy Office, modification
of the rights of ecclesiastical tribunals in civilian jurisdiction, and granting the
Consulta a veto on financial issues.29 These suggestions were coldly received
by Antonelli.
The papal retreat from the national programme spawned anticlericalism.
In national circles in Turin, clericalism was denounced as the vanguard of
absolutism and the enemy of Italian nationalism. By this time, even Gioberti
concluded that the union of the temporal and spiritual power of the papacy
was disastrous for both, as well as national unification. The parties of the left
charged that Pius had conspired with the Austrians to annul their constitutional
regime.30 In Turin, Agostino Depretis insisted on curbing Catholic privileges
and clerical abuses. Among other things he proposed that the ministry appropriate ecclesiastical benefices, suppress some of the religious orders, sequester
convents and introduce legislation to provide civil matrimony.31
Depretis’s programme was partially implemented by the Siccardi Laws of
1850, which included nine measures. The first five abrogated various forms of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction enjoyed by the church in Piedmont; the sixth eliminated the church’s right of asylum; the seventh limited punishment of nonobservance of religious solemnity to six Catholic holidays and Sundays. Proposal VIII stipulated that ecclesiastical corporations could no longer acquire
real property without the state’s consent. Finally, the last proposal called for
legislation regulating marriage as a civil contract.32 In the interim, measures
were taken to wrest control of education from clerical domination. Following
the expulsion of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart from Piedmontese territory,
the school law of 1848 stipulated that direction of the schools was a civil rather
than an ecclesiastical function, so that bishops could no longer prevent individuals from teaching as they had under the regulation of 1822. Thus, by the
end of 1848, the Turin government had restricted church control over education, deepening the divide between church and state. Cavour, the architect of
Italian consolidation, desired an educational system open to all, and eventually invoked a separation of church and state. This infuriated Pio Nono, who
branded this programme demonic.
28
29
30
31
32
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. cv (1849), p. 376.
ASV, SSE, corrispondenza da Gaeta e Portici, 1849, rubrica 242, sottofascicolo 76.
Coppa, ‘Realpolitik and conviction’, pp. 590–3.
Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Archivio Depretis, Serie I, busta 10, fascicolo 29.
Legge Siccardi sull’abolizione del foro e delle immunià ecclesiastiche tornate del Parlamento
Subalpino (Turin: Pomba Editori, 1850), p. 77.
240
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
Pius had come to the conclusion that the Turin government was dominated
by antireligious sentiments; its mania for expansion in Italy was perceived as a
threat to the pope’s temporal and spiritual power. The pope complained that
the foes of Catholicism used nationalism to wage a war against the Apostolic
See. His denunciations were ignored by Cavour. ‘With us the Court of Rome
has lost every sort of moral authority’, he wrote to one of his English friends;
‘it might launch against us all the thunderbolts it keeps in reserve in the
cellars of the Vatican and would fail to produce any great agitation in these
parts’.33 Papal complaints and calls for assurance of church interests found a
more receptive audience elsewhere. In 1850, the Madrid government concluded
an agreement which pronounced Catholicism the religion of state, while the
clergy was invested with broad powers, including the supervision of education.
Negotiations were also opened with the Vienna government, which resulted
in an accord which made broad concessions to the church, as Franz Joseph
proclaimed his devotion to the Holy See.34
The deference showed Rome by Madrid and Vienna highlighted the ecclesiastical policies of the Turin government, as well as its nationalist policy
in Italy, which Pius found objectionable. In September 1851, Pius rejected
the Piedmontese contention that their school administration had to be
under exclusive civil authority. The recently formed journal of the Jesuits,
Civiltà Cattolica, seconded his stance. To further widen the rift, the connubio or marriage of the centre-right led by Cavour and the centre-left led by
Urbano Rattazzi in 1852 provided the parliamentary basis for additional antiecclesiastical legislation and the downfall of the D’Azeglio government, which
proved unable fully to implement the Siccardi legislation. At the end of 1852,
Cavour assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers. His government,
to the pope’s displeasure, assumed a more radical position on ecclesiastical and national issues than the D’Azeglio government. Pius believed Italian
nationalists threatened both his temporal and spiritual power, perceiving the
Risorgimento as doubly damnable. He preferred antinationalist Austria, which
sought to preserve the status quo, to revisionist Piedmont, which aimed to
unite the peninsula under its banner.
Since its defeat in the first war of Italian unification (1848–9), Turin had
sought to restrict the role of the church in its territory. The pope resented the
Piedmontese legislation and its appeal to Protestant Britain for approval of
what London dubbed a ‘second Reformation’. In Austria, the official gazette
33 Count Nigra (ed.), Count Cavour and Madame de Circourt: some unpublished correspondence,
trans. A. J. Butler (London: Cassell, 1894), p. 98.
34 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Austria.
241
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
observed that Turin wished to differentiate herself from Catholic Austria
by persecuting the papacy, which had wounded national sentiment during
the abortive war of liberation. Vienna, in turn, determined to show herself
persistently Catholic as Piedmont betrayed her ‘heretical’ sentiments. Pius was
scandalised by the works published in Turin and their permissive philosophy,
which he denounced as detrimental to the faith. He considered the Sardinian
ecclesiastical legislation contrary to the rights of the church, accusing that
state of interfering in the administration of the sacraments.35 In the spring of
1854, Rattazzi, Cavour’s political ally, proposed a law (the Law of Convents)
which envisioned the suppression of a number of Piedmont’s religious orders.
To make matters worse, the pope feared that the Turin government would
export its power and policies to the other states of the peninsula.
Rumour spread that Louis Napoleon had promised the Piedmontese that
he would eventually champion their cause, a commitment he later confirmed.
Antonelli was convinced that so long as things remained quiet in Europe,
Habsburg arms could preserve the status quo.36 Rome feared that Napoleon III
envisioned a war against Russia as a means of reorganising Europe along
national lines. Despite the pleas of Pope Pius IX for peace, by the spring of
1854 the British and French were ranged against the Russians in the Crimean
War. Cavour, who joined the anti-Russian coalition, hoped that the Habsburg
monarchy would aid its conservative ally, so that the liberal bloc of London,
Paris and Turin might co-operate to push the Austrians out of Italy.
Cavour’s dream was the pope’s nightmare. He feared that Austrian involvement in the war would lead to a relaxation of her efforts in Italy, encouraging
the revolutionaries to unleash another wave of terror. Rome was likewise troubled by Piedmont’s efforts to ingratiate herself with the British by denouncing
the temporal power.37 The pope urged the faithful to pray for peace, lamenting
the injuries threatened by bellicose afflictions.38 His words were wasted on the
‘Piedmontese Machiavelli’, who was frustrated by the unwillingness of the
French and British to make any tangible concession to his country to bring
her into the war, and the unwillingness of his political ally, Urbano Rattazzi, to
support Piedmont’s entry without compensation. Cavour resolved the issue
by promising his support for Rattazzi’s Law of Convents in return for Rattazzi’s
35 ASR, Miscellanea di Carte Politiche o Riservate, busta 121, fascicolo 4214; memorandum
of 23 June 1852.
36 ASV, SSE, corrispondenza da Gaeta e Portici, rubrica 247, sottofascicolo 222.
37 Prela to Antonelli, 9 and 14 June 1853, ASV, SSE, 1853, rubrica 242, fascicolo 3, sottofascicoli
19, 24.
38 Carlen (ed.), The papal encyclicals, vol. i, pp. 331–3.
242
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
unconditional commitment to bring Piedmont into the Crimean War. This
cynical compromise confirmed Pio Nono’s conviction that nationalism and
anticlericalism were synonymous, and he opposed both.
In February 1856, when the congress ending the Crimean War convened,
Pius implored Napoleon’s protection for the church, asking the French to
prevent the congress from addressing papal affairs.39 His intentions were
thwarted by Cavour. In April, after the terms of peace had been settled,
Waleski, at Napoleon’s bidding, proposed discussing problems that might
disturb the peace. Cavour addressed the powers and the tribunal of public
opinion, denouncing the irregular state of affairs in the Papal States, and suggesting that its problems burdened the entire peninsula. Pius was exasperated
by Cavour’s tactics, lamenting that he had even charmed the Russians. Perhaps
it was because a big dog does not notice the barking of a small one, he confided to his brother, adding that he had certainly followed the Piedmontese
antics.40
Rome wondered why the study Napoleon had commissioned on the papal
government and its finances (the Rayneval report) was not released. That
report contended that the ‘abuses’ of the Roman regime were neither qualitatively nor quantitatively different from those elsewhere. Antonelli released this
positive report to the courts of Europe. However, the goodwill it generated
was squandered by Pio Nono’s stance during the Mortara affair of 1858. The
Hebrew child, Edgardo Levi Mortara, secretly baptised by a Christian servant
of the household during a childhood illness, was taken from his parents in June
1858, to assure his salvation. There were protests from the family, the Jews of
Italy and Napoleon, but Pius refused to relent. Despite the condemnation
of world opinion and the unfortunate publicity it generated, Pius would not
budge.41 Cavour utilised the Mortara affair to discredit Rome, and secretly
schemed with Napoleon to reorganise Italy. At Plombières, in late July 1858,
the two plotted war against Austria and a diminution of the Papal States. The
nuncio in Paris, Sacconi, reported that the French empire had little good to
say about the papal government, proposing that the pope have a smaller state
so he would be less embarrassed by the burdens of power.42
39 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Francia, Sovrani, nn. 30 and 32.
40 Monti, Pio IX, p. 260.
41 Gabriele (ed.), Il carteggio Antonelli-Sacconi, vol. i, p. xiii; ASV, Archivio Particolare
Pio IX, Oggetti Vari, n. 1433.
42 Gabriele (ed.), Il carteggio Antonelli-Sacconi, vol. i, p. 5; Massari, Diario, pp. 84, 93.
243
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
Pius, regretting the prospect of war, invoked prayer to avoid the catastrophe.
His prayers were not answered, and on 29 April 1859 the Austrians declared
war. Napoleon, who cast his lot with Piedmont, promised to protect the pope.
The pledge was violated under the pressure of events.43 Following the battle of Magenta on 4 June 1859, the Austrian garrisons were withdrawn from
Pavia, Piacenza, Ancona and Ferrara, encouraging revolutionaries in Bologna
to move against the legate, who fled to Ferrara. The provisional government
which ensued called for Piedmontese protection, and Victor Emmanuel dispatched 2,000 troops, appointing Massimo D’Azeglio his representative in the
Romagna. Pius decried the conspiracy in his dominions, excommunicating
all those involved in the rebellion. There was a call for the papal government to mediate the Franco-Austrian dispute and restore peace, but Pius
realised that Vienna’s call for a return to the status quo would be unacceptable
in Paris.44
The Second War of Italian Liberation, seizure of papal territory, and the
legislation of the Turin government hardened the pope’s heart against the
Piedmontese. In November 1859 the government approved the Casati education law, soon extended to the Kingdom of Italy, which stipulated that the
ministry of public education would supervise all schools – including religious
ones. Following the papal lead, the bishops protested against the laicisation of
education and the attempt to place seminaries under state control. Convinced
that a war was being waged against the church, in the decade between the second restoration and the proclamation of the Italian Kingdom in 1861, Pio Nono
issued more than a dozen condemnations of Cavour and his colleagues responsible for unification. He did more than denounce the Piedmontese aggression
and extension of their anticlerical legislation to other parts of the peninsula,
assailing the modern doctrines which encouraged non-Catholic cults, and permitted the press to subvert the faith and undermine the church.45 Trusting in
divine providence, the diplomacy of Antonelli and the troops of Napoleon III,
Pio Nono remained in the eternal city while the greater part of his state was
merged into the Kingdom of Italy.
The spoliation of his temporal power took a toll on the pope’s health, and
in April 1861, fever-stricken, he collapsed in the Sistine Chapel. However in
43 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Francia, n. 42; ‘Proclamation L’Empereur au
peuple français’, Le Moniteur Universel, 3 May 1859; Victor Emmanuel to Pius IX, 25 May
1859, ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Sardegna, n. 52.
44 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Sardegna, n. 53; Gabriele (ed.), Il carteggio
Antonelli-Sacconi, vol. i, pp. 136–8.
45 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Austria, n. 35; ‘Allocuzione di N.S. Papa
Pio IX’, 18 Mar. 1861, Civiltà Cattolica, ser. iv, 10 (1861), 17.
244
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
1861, the Angel of Death bypassed the aged and ailing pontiff, who would live
to 1878, removing Cavour, who had just become Italy’s first prime minister.
The pope was scandalised by the extension of the Piedmontese Casati Law
of 1859 to the other provinces in a quest to create a national consciousness
and restrict the influence of the church on the young. The Italian scholastic
policy challenged the clergy’s role in education, seeking by means of lay
teachers and secular curricula a non-confessional culture. Pius considered these
measures an insidious attack upon the faith, which he contrasted to the more
open attempt by Garibaldi and his supporters to seize Rome in the summer
of 1862.
The pope resented French pressure upon him to come to terms with modern
civilisation in general, and the Turin regime in particular, decrying the threats
to remove French troops from Rome unless it reached some accommodation.
On 15 September 1864, the Minghetti government signed an accord with the
French empire to regulate the Roman question without consulting Pius IX.
It provided that Napoleon would withdraw his forces from Rome within two
years, while the Italian government promised not to attack the patrimony of
St Peter and to prevent others from launching an attack from its territory. Pius,
still smarting from the Turin government’s insistence in 1863 on the exequatur,
requiring its consent to have papal bulls, briefs or other documents approved
in the Kingdom, as well as the placet, requiring approval for ecclesiastical acts,
was anxious to speak out. There had been talk of tying the condemnation of
modern errors to the Proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, but
this was deemed inappropriate. The pope returned to the need for a forthright
condemnation following the seizure of the greater part of the Papal States. He
catalogued many of the errors later listed in the Syllabus.46
The September Convention encouraged Pius to unleash the spiritual
weapons in his arsenal, issuing the encyclical Quanta Cura on 8 December
1864, to which was appended the Syllabus of Errors, listing eighty errors drawn
from previous papal documents, condemning various movements and beliefs.
The encyclical reaffirmed the church’s right to educate, the plenitude of papal
authority, and the absolute independence of the church vis-à-vis civil authority. Under ten headings the Syllabus condemned pantheism, naturalism, materialism, absolute as well as moderate rationalism, indifferentism, and false
tolerance in religious matters, finding them incompatible with the Catholic
faith. In addition, socialism and communism, as well as secret and Bible societies, were denounced. Likewise condemned were errors regarding marriage,
46 Report of the Congregation of the Holy Office on the seventy principal errors of the
time, ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Oggetti Vari, n. 1779.
245
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
as well as those on the temporal power of the pope. The secular system of education advocated by the Piedmontese and Italians was condemned in errors 45
and 47. The critique of the errors of the liberalism of the day caused the greatest
controversy, and especially the condemnation of the final error, which called
for the Roman pontiff to reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and recent
civilisation.47
Pius considered convoking a council to deal with the contemporary
dilemma, and on 6 December 1864, two days before issuing the Syllabus of
Errors, asked the cardinals in curia to weigh the possibility. Encouraged by
their response, he proceeded. In June of 1867, Pius publicly revealed his decision
to convoke a council. He had hoped to have it open shortly, but difficulties at
home and abroad conspired against an early convocation, including Garibaldi’s
incursion into the Papal States in 1867, before he was halted by a Franco-papal
military force at Mentana. As a result, French forces were again stationed in
Rome.
On 29 June 1868, the papal bull of convocation explained its purposes: the
combating of error, the definition of doctrine and the upholding of ecclesiastical discipline. The opening was set for 8 December 1869, the feast of the
Immaculate Conception. Prior to its opening, Pius implored remedies for the
numerous evils afflicting church and society. Considering the Holy See to be
the centre of unity in the church, the pope revealed his determination to play a
key role in the council’s proceedings. The bull of November 1869 providing its
guidelines allowed him to propose questions for discussion and to nominate
the cardinals, who presided over the committees of the council, as well as its
secretary.48 The committees devised fifty-one Schemata for consideration, but
eventually only two were discussed: Dei Filius and De Ecclesia. The former,
adopted by a unanimous vote on 24 April 1870, aimed not simply to condemn
rationalism, modern naturalism, pantheism, materialism and atheism, but to
elaborate the positive doctrines which these ‘errors’ violated. Reason was not
rejected, but its limitations were exposed in the natural order, and more so, in
the spiritual sphere. It reaffirmed the reasonableness of the supernatural character of Christian revelation, deeming faith an assent of the intellect, moved
by will, and elevated by divine grace.
De Ecclesia, which contained three chapters on the pope’s primacy and
one on his infallibility, created greater controversy. Bishop Ullathorne of
47 For Quanta Cura see Carlen (ed.), The Papal encyclicals, vol. i, pp. 381–6, and for the
Syllabus Kertesz (ed.), Documents, pp. 233–41.
48 Carlen (ed.), Papal pronouncements, vol. i, p. 40; Coppa, Pope Pius IX, pp. 159–61.
246
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
Birmingham reported that Pius had strong opinions on both issues, and
claimed that the pope constantly supported the majority in favour of infallibility. Thus not many were surprised, at the end of April, when he agreed to
give precedence to the section on the powers of the pope, removing it from its
order in the face of the opposition of the minority, and the reservations of part
of the majority. In mid-May, the chapters on the papacy were placed before the
general assembly. On the final vote on 18 July 1870, 535 assented to infallibility
while only two opposed. The dogma declared that the Roman pontiff, when
he speaks ex cathedra and defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held
by the universal church, is infallible. Controversy surrounded it, even after the
outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and the close of the council.
Pius sought to mediate between the French and the Prussians, but his efforts
proved abortive,49 rendering Rome vulnerable to the vagaries of war. When
the French evacuated their troops from Civitavecchia in early August, Pius
hoped that some other power might step into the breach, but found no volunteers. The Italians, in turn, fielded an ‘army of observation’ in central Italy,
and sent dispatches on 29 August informing their representatives abroad of
their decision to take Rome.50 The intransigent element in the eternal city
urged Pius to flee from the impending Italian occupation, and the Empress
Eugénie, the regent, sent the man-of-war Orenoque to Civitavecchia to evacuate Pius to France. However, the 78-year-old pope wanted to die at home. On
8 September Victor Emmanuel sent an envoy to the pope, justifying the necessity of occupying what remained of the Papal States. ‘Nice words, but ugly
deeds’, the pope muttered as he read the king’s letter, responding with a firm
refusal.51 On 19 September, Pius instructed his forces to offer token resistance
to the impending Italian intrusion, letting the world know that while they
could not prevent the thief from coming, he entered by violence.
Early in October, the occupiers held an election on whether the citizens
of Rome and its environs wished union with the constitutional monarchy of
Victor Emmanuel. The vote overwhelmingly favoured inclusion in the Italian
Kingdom. On 9 October 1870, Rome and its provinces were incorporated into
Italy, while the pope was promised inviolability and the personal prerogatives
of a sovereign. Pius withdrew into the Vatican, considering himself a prisoner
therein. On 20 October, he suspended the Vatican Council. Rejecting all offers
49 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Francia, n. 86.
50 Commissione per la Pubblicazione dei Documenti Diplomatici, I documenti diplomatici
Italiani. Prime serie (  – ) (Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1952), vol. xiii, n. 580.
51 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Sovrani, Sardegna, n. 82; Coppa, Pope Pius IX, p. 170.
247
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
fr ank coppa
of asylum, he pledged to defend his rights. In a November encyclical, Pius
condemned the ‘sacrilegious’ seizure, invoking the major excommunication
for all those who had perpetrated the invasion, the usurpation and the occupation of the papal domain, as well as those who had aided or counselled this
‘pernicious’ action.52
To reassure Catholics, as well as the Powers, in December 1870 the Italians
introduced a Law of Guarantees which recognised the inviolability of the pope,
while investing him with the attributes of a sovereign. As financial compensation for the loss of his territory, he was pledged annually and in perpetuity
the sum of 3,225,000 lire, not subject to taxation. Regarding church–state relations the exequatur and placet were abolished, along with other government
mechanisms for controlling the publication and execution of ecclesiastical
acts, in accordance with Cavour’s notion of a separation of church and state. It
became effective in May. Pius repudiated it, refusing to accept any agreement
diminishing his rights, which were those of God and the Apostolic See.53 In his
view, truth and lies, light and darkness, could not be conciliated. Attacking the
laws as inspired by atheism, indifference in religious matters and pernicious
maxims, he repeated his condemnation in a series of subsequent encyclicals,
warning the bishops of impending difficulties and hardships.54
The plight of the church in Italy worsened following the ‘parliamentary
revolution’ of 1876, which saw the party of the Destra (right) replaced by
the more anticlerical Sinistra (left). The new minister of education, Michele
Coppino, replaced religious education in the schools with the study of ‘the
duties of man and the citizen’.55 Distressed by developments in Italy, Pius
galvanised the church to fight the ‘poison’ of the revolution, abandoning
himself to the hands of God, certain that He would ultimately resolve matters
in favour of the faithful.56 For his part, he saw the need to strengthen Catholic
ideology and safeguard the pontifical magistracy, which was threatened by the
revisionist, heretical and liberal-national currents which had overtaken Italy.
Pius openly condemned whatever and whomever he deemed in error,
regardless of rank, popularity or power. He perceived himself the agent of
truth and justice, which had been outraged and offended. His assertion that
52 Carlen (ed.), The papal encyclicals, vol. i, pp. 393–7.
53 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 399–402.
54 Carlen (ed.), Papal pronouncements, vol. i, p. 41; P. De Franciscis (ed.), Discorsi del sommo
pontefice Pio IX pronunziati in Vaticano ai fedeli di Roma e dell’orbe dal principio della sua
prigionia fino al presente, 4 vols. (Rome: G. Aureli, 1872–8), vol. i, pp. 89, 137–40.
55 Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Testo unico delle leggi sull’istruzione superiore (Rome:
Tipografia Romana Cooperativa, 1919), p. 2.
56 ASV, Archivio Particolare Pio IX, Francia, Particolari.
248
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Italy: the church and the Risorgimento
the church had to instruct, direct and govern the Christian world clashed
with the liberal demand for popular sovereignty, and the nationalist call for
the omnipotence of the state. Pius’s traditionalism and Ultramontanism left
little room for compromise with the liberal and national notions which prevailed in Italy. Liberal Catholics came in for a special condemnation from this
pope, who charged they undermined the spiritual unity of the church while
championing a false liberty. In their efforts to reconcile ‘human progress’ with
the gospel, light with darkness, Christ with Satan, they did more harm than
good.57 The conflict between church and state in Italy which emerged during
the Risorgimento would not be resolved until 1929.
57 Pius to a delegation from the Catholic Clubs of Belgium, 8 May 1873, Dublin Review [new
series] 26 (1876), 489.
249
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008