The Church in Politics—
Americans, Beware!

A Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society, Orchestra Hall, Chicago, Sunday at 11 A. M.

By

M. M. MANGASARIAN

The Church in Politics—
Americans, Beware!

In his letter on religion in politics, President Roosevelt takes the position, I believe, that we may look forward to the day when a Catholic, for instance, may be nominated and elected to the presidency of the United States of America. He also intimates that to refuse to vote for a Catholic on account of his religion would be bigotry! The Lutheran, Baptist and Presbyterian bodies have, if I am not mistaken, officially protested against the president's pronouncement. These Protestant churches declare that it is not fair to call them bigots for objecting to a Catholic for president.

Speaking only in the capacity of a private citizen, it is my opinion that, according to the Constitution, a Catholic is not eligible to be a candidate for president. Neither is a sincere and consistent Christian of any other denomination. Nor is a believing Jew. The Constitution explicitly ignores the religious interests of the nation; it does not even so much as mention the name of God. Had the document been created by infidels it could not have been more indifferent to the subject of church or religion. The Constitution is a downright secular instrument, having as its end one, and only one, object—the rights of man. But the supreme end of the church is God, not man; or man for God. There is then, between the church and the Constitution, an irreconcilable difference. It is because of this that the United Presbyterians, for instance, who have a membership of about a million, refuse even to take part in elections, much less to accept office under a government that deliberately ignores the Christian religion, as well as every other religion. I submit that the United Presbyterians are quite consistent, and that they deserve the respect of all who hold that courage and sincerity are better than ambiguity and inconsistency. A Christian, therefore, can accept a nomination to the presidency, for instance, only by either stultifying himself and belittling his church, or by disregarding the Constitution, its spirit as well as its letter.

Nor would it be "bigotry" to contend that a Protestant or a Catholic candidate, to whom God is first and country second, should under no circumstances be voted into presidential power and influence. Even as it would not be an act of intolerance to deny the presidency of this country to a foreign-born citizen, it would not be intolerant to deny it to Catholics, for example. They are simply not eligible. Both Protestant and Catholic ought to say, when invited to the office, that they can not conscientiously swear to maintain a Constitution which fails in its duties to the Creator, and that if elected they will obey God rather than the Constitution, for a Christian can not serve two masters, neither can he be a Christian and not a Christian at the same time. I am going to quote a page from the history of modern France, to show that that is precisely what the Catholic, at least, does when he comes into power—he obeys God, that is to say, the church, and forgets all about the Constitution, that is to say, the rights of man.

France has been a turbulent country. Its political weather has been more frequently stormy than fair. It makes one nervous, almost, to read the history of France—it is so sensational. Its pages are lit up with the lightning. It is a sad and shocking story of intrigues, plots, conspiracies, treason, machination, finesse,—of manoeuvre and scandal, of sudden strokes and startling surprises, which have alternately cooled and heated the brain of the nation, and which have cultivated in the people the unhealthy craving for excitement.

Let it be admitted that the temperament of the people, its irritability or impetuosity, is in a measure responsible for this. But this in itself is not enough to explain the terrible punishments and misfortunes which have fallen upon that nation. You are all familiar with the remark of one of her great statesmen, Gambetta: "The enemy, it is clericalism."

Another statesman, Paul Bert, said: "It is not our domestic discords; it is not England; nor even the trained German legions, that constitute the greatest menace to Frenchmen and the prosperity of France, still bleeding from her wounds, but the man in black." Did these statesmen speak the truth? We shall ask history to answer the question. This much, however, we can say without consulting history, that today the French republic and the Catholic church are at swords' points. After trying to pull together, church and state have separated—are completely divorced, and each suspects and fears the other. Let us try to explain the strained relations between Rome and the French republic by a reference to the events in France from the time of the second republic to the Franco-Prussian war.

In 1848, after many attempts to maintain the monarchy, France returned to the republican form of government. The Catholic church, always powerful in the country, and having great interests at stake, to the surprise of the nation, welcomed the republic with enthusiasm. The Archbishop of Cambrai, the bishops of Gap, of Chalons, of Nancy, and the Catholic periodicals, l'Univers, the Moniteur, etc., declared that the republican form of government was of divine origin, and that there were no other three words in all the world more sacred than the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." In all the churches high mass was celebrated, and a Te Deum chanted in honor of the new regime. "There are no more devoted and sincere republicans in France than the Catholics," wrote Veuillot in l'Univers, the organ of the church. In asking you to keep this in mind, I also request you to note that the Catholic church in America seems to be today just as devoted to the American republic as the French Catholics professed to be to the republic of 1848. But let us not forget that this same clergy, during the reign of the first Napoleon, introduced the following questions and answers into every church catechism in use throughout the land:

Question: Why are we under obligations to our emperor?

Answer: Because, in the first place, God, who creates empires and distributes them according to his pleasure, in blessing our emperor, both in peace and war, has set him over us as our sovereign, and has made him the image of himself upon the earth. To honor and serve the emperor is then to honor and serve God.

Question: Are there not special reasons why we are most profoundly indebted to Napoleon the First, our emperor?

Answer: Yes. For in difficult circumstances, he is the man whom God has raised up to re-establish the public worship of the holy religion of our fathers, and to be our protector.... He has become the anointed of the Lord by the consecration