That Veto

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXI, Issue 41, 8 October 1903, Page 1

That Veto

It has been said that most people follow their consciences ais a man follows a wheelbarrow, pushing it be-

fore faim the way he wants it to go, 'A similar , method of dealing with facts will sufficiently account for many, ' fairy tales of a far-off land ' that appeared in the columns of the secular press regarding the recent Like the credulous savans satirised by Butler in ' The Elephant and the Moon,' some of the Rome correspondents of the time ' Resolved to give truth no regard, But what was for their turn, to vouch, And either find or make it such ; That 'twas more noble to create Things like truth, out of strong conceit, Than, with vexatious pains and doubt, To find or think t' have found her out.' It was manifestly much easier to let the creative faculties of the imagination run riot in the invention of ' snappy ' and sensational paragraphs than, ' with vexatious pains and doubt,' to endeavor to penetrate to the truth of the matters that were involved in such elaborate secrecy as the proceedings of the Conclave.

One of the most persistent of all the tit-bits of Conclave history that were cabled to the ends of the earth waj-f the story of the veto which is alleged to have been pronounced against Cardinal Kampolla on behalf of the Emperor of Austria. The various contradictory and mutually destructive versions of the alleged incident served to surround it with a halo of doubt and suspicion, and though the foundation statement of the story has been generally accepted as true, yet it seems by no means certain that the veto was, in point of fact, pronounced. The London ' Tablet,' of August 22, has the following interesting editorial note in point :— ' If there is one thing about which tlie man in the street is sure at this moment it is that either Cardinal Kopp or Cardinal Gruscha pronounced a veto in the name of Austria against the election of Cardinal Rampolla. Correspondents have sent graphic descriptions of the thrilling effect which the announcement of the veto had upon the assembled Cardinals, and we have had almost ' verbatim ' reports of the dignified protest which fell from the lips of Cardinal Rampolla. And yet, on the strength of a communication received from a prelate who was present at the Conclave and d,uring the whole of the sittings, we are able to say that neither of the Cardinals named ever said one wofd about a veto on behalf of Austria or any other Power. If any attempt had been made in any quarter to revive the veto it would assuredly have been repudiated in the name of the Holy See. 1

The three great Catholic nations, Austria, France, and Spain, were long allowed to exercise a restricted veto in the election of a Pope. In return they were supposed to guard the rights of the Holy See from violence and invasion. The veto of each of the three Power's naimed above was strictly limited to one Cardinal. Moreover, the veto had to be pronounced before the election was complete. Otherwise it was of no avail. ' Besides,' says Father Keller in his « Life of Leo X 111.,' ' each of the Governments could make use of its veto but once, so that at the most only three Cardinals were excluded. ? „ . Once that this veto had been pronounced against any candidate, the privilege was at an end, and could not be used against any other in the same election. In ihis manner it was sought to observe all due regard towards the great Catholic nations, whilst, on the other hand, the freedom of the election was secured. This privilege granted to the three leading Catholic Governments (Austria, France, and Spain) was termed the " exclusiva." But even this concession does not constitute a formal right to be maintained against the Church, or to which she would consider herself bound to yield unconditionally through a sense of moral obligation. It is nothing more than a grant or concession, grounded on motives of prudence. If a Pope chose to abolish this veto, it would cease ; and if a Pope were elected over thie veto, he would still be Pope.' As a matter of fact, the right of veto no longer exists. It was pole-axed by the decree of Pius IX., which excluded ' all and every intervention of the secular power ' in the election of the Sovereign Pontiff. If Francis Joseph of Austria attempted to interfere, as reported, in the late Papal election, he played the part of an offensive busybody and intruder. A recent number of the ' Voce della Verita ' (Rome) contains what seems to be an official announcement that the Holy See will take steps to ensure perfect freedom in Papal elections. ' The announcement,' says an .English contemporary, ' may be taken as a definite sign that steps will be taken to avoid any cause for the spread of such reports in the future, by the formal repudiation of the veto by the Holy See.' It is well that the State should begin to mind its own business and cease poking a meddlesome Anger into a matter that is so completely of the spiritual domain as the election of a successor to the See of St. Peter.