WHY AMERICA HAS NOT SIX CARDINALS.

BY SALVATORE CORTESI.

MAY I be allowed to begin with a personal statement-that, during my long connection with American journalism and literary work, I have constantly supported the idea, endorsed even by prominent Protestants, that the Catholic Church has acquired in the United States such a position through its wonderful development in numbers, in the importance of its men and in the prestige and influence which it exercises in almost all the manifestations of the life of the country, especially in the education of the children, that only one Cardinal is an inadequate representation in the Sacred College for such an immense body of Catholics. In less than a century, the land of William Penn has become the fourth Catholic Power in the world from the point of view of numbers, being surpassed only by France, Austria and Italy, while it surpasses even these countries if we take into consideration the loyalty of the faithful, their generosity and their progressiveness. The Catholic Church in the United States, although remaining Roman, has a thoroughly American character of enterprise, of expansion and of grandeur, owing to the vastness of its institutions and the splendor of its buildings, which will soon rival in size and artistic beauty the historical cathedrals of the Old World, so that before long to the latter will only remain the superiority coming from centuries of tradition. Thus the balance will be maintained: the history in Europe; the vigor of modern genius in America.

If there were no figures to substantiate these affirmations they might seem exaggerations, but facts are undeniable. Let us take, for instance, New York, a diocese founded a century ago by the rescript of Pius VII appointing Father Luke Concannon, an Irish Dominican, as the first Bishop, who, however, never

reached his post, as he died suddenly after his consecration in Rome. Is it possible in our time to imagine New York's having, as its only Catholic Church, St. Peter's on Barclay Street? It was only in 1809 that the corner-stone was laid of St. Patrick's Cathedral on Mott Street, which cost one hundred thousand dollars, a sum then enormous, though it is a mere mite compared with the millions spent on the new cathedral of St. Patrick on Fifth Avenue, and on the over 300 churches which have since been erected in the archdiocese, besides about 200 chapels. New York is to-day the strongest Catholic city in the world, though Paris may have more people baptized into the Church, or there may be numerically more in Vienna; but neither Paris nor Vienna, nor Rome itself, can boast such a truly devout Catholic population at once so prosperous, so intelligent and so active. Besides being the metropolis of the western world, second only to London in population, New York, with its Catholics numbering about a million, almost as many as in the whole of England, and certainly more than in the whole of Australia, constitutes the most powerful centre the Papacy possesses in the Christian world. Statistics demonstrate that more than a million souls are added every year to the United States through immigration, three-fourths of whom are Catholics.

All this is more than sufficient to prove that the claims which for years have been put forward to have another American Cardinal are more than justified; but lately the Vatican authorities have been rather alarmed by the feeling which found expression in an article, published in THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, demanding not one, but six Cardinals. Rome, therefore, prefers to demonstrate that the Catholic Church in the United States has no right to insist on the creation of American Cardinals. The supporters of the American demands set forth, as the strongest arguments in favor of their claims, that, firstly, the United States has now ceased to be a missionary country, having been removed from the jurisdiction of the Congregation of Propaganda, and is on the same footing as France, Austria, Italy and Spain; secondly, that the number of American Catholics may be safely estimated at 24,000,000, including, of course, those in the Philippines and Porto Rico; thirdly, that the contributions of Americans towards the Church are incomparably generous; and, fourthly, that the American prelates who are those pointed out as

worthy of the honor of the purple, are men of great distinction in churchmanship and otherwise.

The first argument has no special weight, for the reason that the whole of Latin America, which is entirely Catholic and has, therefore, never been a missionary country, had no Cardinal at all until the present Pope gave the Red Hat to Monsignor Cavalcanti, Archbishop of Rio Janeiro, in 1905-that is to say, thirty years after the United States had her first Prince of the Church, Archbishop McCloskey.

The second argument has not more weight in the eyes of the Holy See, since the creation of Cardinals is in no way proportioned to the Catholic population of the different countries. If it were so, as the United States had a Cardinal in 1875 when the Catholics there numbered about 5,000,000, Latin America should have had for several years nearly a dozen Cardinals— while, as we have seen, until 1905 she had none and now has only one. England not long ago, with less than a million faithful, had three Cardinals-Newman, Manning and Howard. If the arguments put forward with regard to America in connection with the number of Catholics had been then applied to the Catholic countries, France would have been entitled to over thirty Cardinals, Italy to twenty-five, Spain to eighteen, and so on. The same might be said about Australia or Canada, both of which had a Cardinal when their Catholic population had not yet reached one million. England, where also Catholicism, notwithstanding the unflinching opposition of Protestantism, has made such progress that in the last century the number of Catholics has risen in England and Wales alone from 60,000 to nearly 2,000,000 has been for six years, since the death of Cardinal Vaughn, without a single representative in the Sacred College, while instead there are three who are Irish or of Irish descent-Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh; Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney; and Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. This disposes of the second argument.

The contributions of the American Catholics towards their Church at home and the Peter's Pence in Rome, besides direct offerings to the Pope, and until lately to propaganda, are certainly very considerable compared to those coming from other countries; but they will appear less so, if viewed in proportion to the riches of the United States and the less prosperous condition

of other parts of the world. There have been times, strange as it may now appear, in which France, then really acting as the eldest daughter of the Church, contributed to its clergy and to the Holy See more than all the other Catholic nations put together; but no one thought that this gave her a right to demand a larger number of Cardinals than she has had when her offerings became scarce. The United States have certainly also indirectly contributed to keep up the finances of the Vatican, since it was considered that, when the present Pope was raised to the Chair of St. Peter, the capital on the interest of which the Holy See had chiefly to depend, amounted to about $6,000,000, besides the Peter's Pence, bringing something like $500,000 yearly, and an average of $100,000 coming from the different ecclesiastical congregations as fees for briefs, matrimonial dispensations, annulment of marriages, conferment of titles of nobility, etc. These revenues, put together, made a total income of $800,000 a year, which, as Pius X said, after having introduced all possible economies, "are only sufficient for eight months of the year." For the other four months the Pope depended upon the direct offerings of the faithful, and the time is now long past when for about eight centuries each English family contributed annually one shilling towards the upkeep of the Holy See.

The settlement of the dispute about the land of the Friars in the Philippines, and of the other church questions in Cuba and Porto Rico, almost doubled the capital of the Vatican, so that their finances are now on a relatively solid basis; but such a transaction, which had, after all, a business character, cannot be taken as a reason for increasing the number of American Cardinals.

Finally, the last argument is, from the point of view of the Church dignitaries in Rome, the weakest of all. No one denies the great ability and learning of an ecclesiastic like Archbishop Farley, in the same way that it is impossible not to recognize the commanding influence and the universal respect which Archbishop Ireland enjoys among Catholics and Protestants alike, or the veneration called out by Archbishop Ryan of Philadelphia, the piety and administrative capacity of Archbishop Glennon of St. Louis, or the eloquence, tact and energy of Archbishop O'Connell of Boston; but these qualities, although they are generally among the coefficients required for the Cardinalate, are

not always sufficient, or even necessary, in order to secure entrance to the Sacred College. Many comparisons might be drawn between American and foreign prelates; but, besides being odious, they would be injudicious, as it would be impossible not to incur the suspicion of partiality. I will, therefore, give one example among the ecclesiastics of the United States. I do not think that there is any one acquainted with church history who does not admire the imposing figure of Monsignor John Hughes, the first Archbishop of New York, who, confessing, confirming, preaching, lecturing, ordaining, raising funds, building schools and colleges, founding charitable institutions, opening new churches, acting as apostle and as diplomatist, was one of the greatest personalities as man, as priest, as patriot. He was sent to Europe on a secret mission by President Lincoln to exercise his influence on the Pope and on the Catholic sovereigns in favor of the Northern States, as almost the whole of the old Continent, with the exception of the then small kingdom of Sardinia, sympathized with the Confederates. His services were extremely valuable, as through his strong individuality, convincing logic and attractive manners he succeeded in gaining over to his cause Pius IX and Louis Napoleon, thus preventing the Holy See and the French Empire first, and then the other European Powers, from recognizing the Confederate States as an independent nation. Still, Archbishop Hughes died without being created a Cardinal, and his successor, Archbishop McCloskey, although by general consent considered a less gifted man, received the Red Hat.

What I have said so far is merely to expound the considerations put forward by Rome in answer to the demands coming from America; but the real truth is that, according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth; he represents divine authority; he is the intermediary between Heaven and the faithful; he fixes dogma; he is infallible because, interpreting Divinity, he cannot err; consequently, he cannot be subjected to control or receive advice as would befit a democratic chief. is, therefore, no argument of any kind strong enough to influence the creation of the Cardinals, intrusted in an uncontrollable way to the will of the Pontiff, who is inspired by the Holy Ghost in choosing and creating the new wearers of the purple, as are the Cardinals when gathered in Conclave for the election of the Pope.

There

Still, this was not the origin of the Cardinals, it is rather in