Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In Brazil.

Bruce Herald, Volume VII, Issue 642, 20 October 1874, Page 3

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In Brazil.

The struggle -between Church and State in" Brazil has gone through some of the phases that have been exhibited by the conflict in Germany. The fact that the Eoman Catholic Church is the only Church recognised by the,laws and Constitution of the South American empire, while in Prussia it is one of three having like privileges, makes no difference in the main question at issue in both. Indeed, the conflict between Church and State, which is being waged at present in so many different countries, is independent of the question of establishment or nonestabliahment; If the Catholic Church in Prussia were disconnected from the State, the form' and character of the struggle might have been different, but the chief matter at issue would have been the same, and the struggle would not probably have been less fierce and protracted than it is. Both in Brazil and Q-ermany it is evident — when minor issues are set aside — that the fight between the representatives of the Church on the one hand, and those of the State on the other, directly involves the question of the supremacy of the national anthority. The Catholic Church through its bishops claim in both the right to exercise a jurisdiction of which it shall itself define the limits. The plea of spiritual independence is employed to justify the exercise of authority in matters which are civil if not in their nature yet in ' their effects. In the manifesto of the Prussian bishops, lately transmitted by the Prince-Bishop of Breslau to the Government, it is declared that the representatives of the Church cannot obey the laws of the State in regard to anything objectionable to them which they ' choose to define as spiritual. In the same way the Bishop of Para, when brought before the Supreme Court of Brazil, refused to admit that it, or any civil tribunal, had authority to call him to account for what he designated as spiritual acts. The two powers — civil and sacred — are thus brought into direct collusion with each other, and the question to be determined in the New "World as in the Old is simply whether the State shall be supreme in its own domain ; or shall the Caurch determine the limits of both the civil and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions? The issue as thus stated is understood in Brazil, if we may judge from the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs befois the Brazilian Parliament. The Minister sketches the course of the conflict between the bishops and the Government --and the diplomatic negotiations tha; have taken place with Borne to bring it ;o a close. The principles on which the Government has proceeded are clearlj defined, and, although the struggle his led to the imprisonment of two of the bishops, it would seem there has been t greater tendency towards conciliation fhown by the Vatican, to which the case was submitted, than has been witnessed in the Old "World. The Governmert continue to cherish the hope that the Holy See may yet bring matters to a satisfactory result, by inducing the bishops to abandon the attitude of opposition which they have assumed. There is no intention or idea on the part of the Government of giving way. The only solution of the difficulty which is contemplated is through the submission of the bishops and their obedience to the laws and Constitution. "The sovereignty of Brazil," says the Viscount de Caravella, '• cannot admit another sovereign over it. That question will, I un confident, be handled by all with the prudence requisite to ensure a satisfactory result j but if another sovereignty, were elevated above the national sovereignty I know not truly what would happen." Earlier in his speech the Minister, referring to the interdict of the Bishop of Olinda against the congregations of his diocese which harbored Freemasons, showed that by this interdict the bishop violated the Constitution of the empire. "It is (he says) unquestionable that the bishop could not render null ani yoid the fundamental law of the empire, which is that no edict, or bull, or any other pontifical decree can be allowed to be of force or effect among us without the consent of our sovereignty." The reference here is to the placet, which guarantees the supremacy of the national authority against ecclesiastical aggressions ; for through it the national sovereignty has a right of veto upon the decrees of the ecclesiastical authority. The placet, he reminded the Chamber, was instituted by the Portuguese monarchy ; it is a right or regulation existing in other countries in which the Catholic religion is equally privileged as in Brazil, and it is essential to prevent the supremacy of a foreign authority above that of the Constitution. In excommunicating Freemasons and laying congregations under interdict because they receive members of that society, the Bishop of Pernambuco (who was the first to take active steps in the matter) proceeded on the authority of the Holy Father, who has denounced Freemasonry and laid Freemasons under ban. The bishop maintained that the penalties inflicted by him were spiritual, and that he was therefore acting within his province. In reply, the Foreign Secretary all'egea that his spiritual sentences have civil effects : that he could not, or did not, so limit his interdict that it should not produce civil injury, since the dissolution of such societies — aa required by the bishop— must rupture many obligations and engagements entered into in strict conformity with the law* of the land. Even a religious society or congregation baa its civil rights and duties in harmony with the country's civil legislation ; and, counting on permanence, may (for example) construct hospitals and contract debts for the execution of works, which would be made void by its abolition or dissolution. It was, therefore, necea sary to protect such association* in their

ciyil rights, and when the bishop refused to withdraw the interdict, it became inevitable that he should be prosecuted. As the bishop might still be obstinate, however, it -was resolved to open negotiations with the Holy See, not as acknowledging its -supremacy, or in order to ask it to exercise any act of sovereignty, but to secure the aid of its authority to bring the bishop back into the paths of obedience to the laws of the empire. It will be evident from all this that Viscount de Caravella, speaking in the name of the Government of Brazil, does not acknowledge the existence of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction ia the empire except that which derives its authority from the laws and Constitution. No foreign prince or ecclesiastic is entitled to exercise sovereign powers in Brazil. Whatever authority the cannon law or Papal bulls and decrees have in the empire, they only possess in virtue of their adoption into and recognition by the Constitution. This is the point at which Ultramontane theorists — whether Roman, Anglican, or Scottish — come into collision with those who maintain the national sovereignty. They all assert some ecclesiastical jurisdiction which is not derived from the laws or the nation but from a higher, even a Divine, source, and in virtue of "which they claim the submission of the State. Equally whether supremacy or merely the independence of a co-ordinate jurisdiction is asserted, the ecclesiastical power is placed higher than the civil. The Minister of Brazil is distinct on this point, and some people nearer home might learn a lesson from his words. The Catholic religion, he shows, is the religion of Brazil in the sense that no other receives the aid which the State grants to it ; and it has among itß privileges even the right to forbid entrance to the Chamber and employment by the State of the adherents of other Churches. But whence (he asks) does it obtain these rights and privileges ? It is from the Constitution. The Constitution has granted these powers and privileges under certain conditions, one of which is the right of veto on ecclesiastical encroachments guaranteed by the placet. Yet in the name of the Catholic religion, which is alone privileged by the Constitution, it is attempted to disobey that same Constitution. If, because of the troubles and tumults caused by the collisioi: between the Church and the State, it should become manifest that the coexistence of the two powers is incompatible, is it the national sovereignty (he asks) that should perish ? " Ido not think a single ieputy present will answer that question in the affirmative." So that if matters are drivefn to extremity, it will not be the Church that will be the gainer.