A politcs of peace: The Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs during the pontificate of Benedict XV (1914-1922)

Di Nicholas Joseph Doublet

The Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs can be considered the political ‘think tank’ of the Roman Curia, the dicastery responsible for bilateral relations with the States, as well as treating the most delicate ecclesiastical issues in the Local Churches. It is the place that brings together the most infuential cardinals of the Roman Curia, the pope’s closest counsellors. The present study aims at clarifying the true operational space of this Congregation during a delicate moment in world history, between 1914 and 1922. It is the period marked by the First World War and the post- war reconstruction, with the birth of a number of Nation States, a time, which also coincides with the pontifcate of Benedict XV. This volume treats not only the history, structure and activity of this Congregation, but also its role within the curial apparatus following the reform of Pius X in 1908. It presents in a new manner its personnel, as well as the debates between the cardinal members, which betray dynamic relationships that are not always as expected. It also sheds new light on the relationship between Benedict XV, his Secretary of State, Pietro Gasparri, and the other cardinals.

• Lingua: Italiano
• Editore: Edizioni Studium S.r.l.
• Data di uscita: 25 lug 2019
• ISBN: 9788838248511

Anteprima del libro

Nicholas Joseph Doublet

A politics of peace

The Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs during the pontificate of Benedict XV (1914-1922)

COORDINATORE DELLA SEZIONE PONTIFICIA

Roberto Regoli (Pontificia Università Gregoriana)

COMITATO SCIENTIFICO DELLA SEZIONE PONTIFICIA

Benedetta Albani (Max-Planck-Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main) – Francesco Castelli (Facoltà Teologica Pugliese) – Luca Codignola-Bo (Cushwa Center, University of Notre Dame) – Irene Fosi (Università degli Studi G. d’Annunzio Chieti) – Andreas Gottsmann (Österreichisches Historisches Institut, Roma) – Maria Lupi (Università degli Studi Roma Tre) – Laura Pettinaroli (Institut catholique de Paris) – Rita Tolomeo (Sapienza Università di Roma) – Paolo Valvo (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano).

Tutti i volumi pubblicati nelle collane dell’editrice Studium Cultura ed Universale sono sottoposti a doppio referaggio cieco. La documentazione resta agli atti. Per consulenze specifiche, ci si avvale anche di professori esterni al Comitato scientifico, consultabile all’indirizzo web http://www.edizionistudium.it/content/comitato-scientifico-0.

The volume is being partly financed by the generous contribution of the Foundation for Theological Studies of the Archdiocese of Malta.

Copyright © 2019 by Edizioni Studium - Roma

ISSN della collana Cultura 2612-2774

ISBN 9788838248511

www.edizionistudium.it

ISBN: 9788838248511

Questo libro è stato realizzato con StreetLib Write

http://write.streetlib.com

Indice dei contenuti

Introduction

I. The Institution

Personnel

Foundation and aim

Structure

Functioning

Relations with the rest of the Roman Curia - Mixed Congregations

A Cabinet for the Church

II. A renewed diplomacy

Diplomatic relations

Concordats and conventions

A renewal achieved

III. Reclaiming the ‘Libertas Ecclesiae’

Struggling for the freedom of the Church in Latin America

Struggling for the freedom of the Church on the European Continent

Religious interests

The ‘Roman Question’

A struggle continued

IV. The Great War (1914-1918)

The challenge of Italian participation

A politics of impartiality

A politics of peace

A humanitarian diplomacy

A moral authority earned

V. The Challenge of Nationalisms

The Ruthenian Question

The Belgian Question

The Polish Question

The Lithuanian Question

The Irish Question

The rise of Czechoslovakia

An impartiality preserved

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Bibliography

Archival sources

Published Sources

Studies

Index of Names and States

CULTURA

Studium

168.

Pontificia

PRESENTAZIONE DELLA SEZIONE PONTIFICIA

La storia del Papato ha trovato in questi anni sempre più ampi spazi all’interno della storiografia italiana e internazionale, per ragioni legate sia al contesto culturale generale – dove si registra uno spiccato interesse per il tema – sia per la permeabilità di questo oggetto di ricerca ai nuovi approcci metodologici (dalla world history alla global history, alla storia transnazionale), così come a quelli più classici e consolidati. Un ruolo non secondario gioca in questo ambito anche la rilevanza dello studio delle relazioni internazionali, sempre più attento alla geopolitica delle religioni. L’innegabile fermento storiografico appare tuttavia disperso in molti rivoli editoriali, con il rischio di una eccessiva parcellizzazione delle proposte e dei contributi e di una conseguente irrilevanza della divulgazione e dell’incisività dei risultati delle singole ricerche.

All’interno della collana Cultura Studium la nuova sezione Pontificia vuole essere un attore di questa più ampia partita culturale, con l’ambizione di divenire un punto di riferimento qualificato per le ricerche del settore. Nell’attuale panorama delle proposte editoriali, Pontificia si propone quale spazio di incontro e discussione di studiosi e di idee, aperto al futuro, capace di dialogare con un ampio pubblico di lettori, inclusivo delle diverse sensibilità della cultura contemporanea, che non sempre trovano un’adeguata rappresentatività sul piano della diffusione.

La sezione è dedicata allo studio del Papato nelle sue molteplici dimensioni – da quella religioso-culturale a quella politico-istituzionale – in una prospettiva prettamente storica, ma aperta al dialogo con le altre discipline. L’orizzonte tematico include la storia dei pontefici, della Curia romana, della diplomazia pontificia, dello Stato Pontificio, dei cardinali e del Sacro Collegio, delle relazioni tra la Santa Sede e le altre confessioni religiose (cristiane e non), dei rapporti tra il Papato e le chiese locali, gli ordini religiosi, le associazioni e i movimenti cattolici. L’orizzonte dei volumi della sezione sarà internazionale a livello sia di tematiche sia di approcci metodologici, includendo la possibilità di pubblicare in lingue diverse.

NICHOLAS JOSEPH DOUBLET

A POLITICS OF PEACE

The Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs during

the pontificate of Benedict XV

(1914-1922)

Introduction

The historiography of the last decades has turned its attention back to institutional history, after quite a long period of marginalization. This has been reflected in the study of Church history, with a growing interest in the study of the central organs of the Holy See, that is in the universal government of the Catholic Church. Starting from the École française de Rome seminars on the Secretary of State in the 1890s and the first years of the twenty-first century, a series of studies have been undertaken by scholars and other European institutions, which have returned to the traditional historiographical interest in institutions. In fact, the collapse of the great ideologies, which found public manifestation in the taking down of the Berlin Wall in 1989, has allowed greater freedom to students from the constraints of the academic schools often subject to pressures of ideological schools of thought caught up in a continuous struggle of contrasts and biased statements.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, there has been a constant growth in interest in Papal institutions. It is in such a context that this present research finds its home, responding to the stimuli just mentioned, to fill in some historiographical gaps. If it is true that there is a growing interest in the study of the Papacy, this is mostly in view of the writing of national histories, and not towards the undertaking of a more in-depth study of the Roman institutions themselves. If the Secretary of State has in part been studied, at least as far as its history in the contemporary age is concerned, the same cannot be said for the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, itself also fundamental for the formation and guidance of the international policy of the Holy See. Studying this Congregation, which must be considered as being what nowadays would be called the ‘think tank’ of the Holy See, is fundamental to understand the international politics of the Holy See, as well as the development of internal ecclesiastical policy, such as balance of power within the Roman Curia. The growing recognition of the significance of this Congregation is evidenced by the ever-growing use of its extensive records in the undertaking of new research.

A proper understanding of the history of the twentieth-century papacy requires a serious study of the history, structure and action of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. The present work proposes to take up this study at an important and decisive moment in the history of contemporary society: the period of the First World War (1914-1918) which coincides with the pontificate of Benedict XV (1914-1922), a period of crisis denoting the end of the modern world, marked by the hegemony of the European and Mediterranean empires, and the beginning of a fragmented world, whose tensions would soon lead to a Second World War.

It is precisely this end of one world and the dawn of a new one which obliges the Church to reflect, so as to partly reconfirm traditional positions, as well as to embark upon, even if only tentatively, new routes in its dialogue with this rapidly changing world. It is precisely between tradition and innovation, that the guiding role of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs emerges, one which determines the policy of Benedict XV, who always confirmed the proposals of its cardinal members.

This study aims to partly fill in the historiographical void, which still surrounds this Vatican dicastery. Although ample use has been made of the archives of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, relative to Benedict XV, since they were made available in 1985, very little has so far been published about this institution. Such a deficiency resulted from among other reasons:

1) Compared to the interest shown to the pontificates of his two successors, Benedict XV remains, in many respects, the unknown Pope, as John A. Pollard justly pointed out in his well-researched biography of this pope [1] .

2) Historiography’s interest in this pontificate has been for the greater part limited to the Holy See’s efforts in regard to the First World War, which inevitably marks this whole pontificate, although in the last two decades great strides have been made in addressing such an imbalance, with an opening up to the religious-political situation in Italy and France, the emergence of Bolshevism in Russia, missionary concerns in the Far East, the concerns with a fragmented Europe emerging from the war and the inauguration of a new policy for concordats.

3) Archival material in general is normally approached with specific thematic interests, and very little attention is normally devoted to the institution that has produced it. As such, the Congregation under study has not been spared from such utilitarian concerns.

4) Another issue concerns accessibility. The very structure of the archival material is divided according to Nation States, making it easier to conduct research according to a State, rather than to approach the inner-workings of the Congregation itself.

Studies that treat the history of the Roman Curia in general, naturally devote very limited space to it, a reason for this being the relatively shorter period of existence when compared with the other major Congregations that dealt with the government of the Church, as well as the extraordinary nature of this Congregation. A certain difficulty always remained in defining its character, as well as in describing it in separation from the Secretariat of State, to which it was intimately connected. Fundamental for the history of the Curia remains the work of Niccolò Del Re, La Curia romana. Lineamenti storico-giuridici [2] , but which necessarily suffers from the limitations of an encyclopediac endeavour, which can hardly go beyond the essentials when dealing with such a diversified reality.

Pius VII established the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs in 1814 as a principal instrument of the Restoration after the Napoleonic upheaval. A deeper historiographical study will be presented in the opening chapters of the present work. For now, it suffices to note the great efforts of both Lajos Pásztor in his exceptional study of the first decades of the Congregation’s existence, published nearly half a century ago, as well as those of Roberto Regoli mapping out in great detail the history of this particular institution in the context of the highest organs of the government of the Catholic Church.

The present study, fully immersed within the institutional history of the Roman Curia, aims at clarifying the true operational space of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, by a study of its activity during the pontificate of Benedict XV. Given that this Congregation was originally instituted specifically to advise the Pope on ecclesiastical matters of a grave nature in times of great change, it is interesting to study how this Congregation, of its very nature created to deal with extraordinary matters, functions in the curial apparatus following the reform of Pius X in 1908, in particular how it fulfills its role in the pontificate of Benedict XV, marked by the grave crisis of the First World War and its immediate aftermath. This study would like to contribute further to understanding the challenges this Congregation had to face in order to carve out its areas of competence from the domains of other Congregations, namely the Consistorial and Propoganda Fide, as a stable or ordinary role, within the Curia.

As noted by Giorgio Feliciani [3] , this Congregation is preserved by the constitution Sapienti Consilio, even though Pius X had originally included it among the congregations to be suppressed. However, it preserves only a relative autonomy and its competencies are defined in a very generic way. Therefore, the reform preserves but limits it to its foundational aim. Its concern was to be limited to the matters presented for its consideration by the pontiff through the Secretary of State, «praesertim ex illis quae cum legibus civilibus coniunctum aliquid habent et ad pacta conventa cum variis civitatibus referuntur» [4] . The Congregation remains without its proper prefect and secretary, in that the Secretary of State occupies the first role, while the Secretary of the prima pars of the Secretariat of State guarantees the second.

So even though the 1908 reform spared its existence, it did not fully clarify its competence, an issue not fully resolved not even by the 1917 Code, as shown by the necessity of a further intervention by Pius XI in 1925, that completed its identification with the Secretariat of State.

The present work will enter into a detailed and comprehensive study of all the matters presented for the cardinals’ discussion within these congregations. These matters will be analyzed according to a number of criteria, starting from the various aspects that materially contributed to the diplomatic renewal for which the pontificate of Benedict XV is known, in contrast to the low point in this sphere during the pontificate of his predecessor Pius X. The redefinition of the instrument that is the concordat proved fundamental in carving out a space for the Church’s existence in a transformed political context. The third chapter will move into a wider arena constituted by the clash, inherited from the preceding centuries, between the Church’s understanding of itself as a ‘perfect society’, and the secular world, that is imbued by the fruits of an aggressive Liberalism, as well as the practical articulation of Communism. A ‘perfect society’ is one which has within it all the means necessary for the achievement of its end. Most importantly, the concept of perfect, meaning complete, society serves the Church as a juridical instrument to defend its rights in its realtionship to the only other ‘perfect society’, that is the State [5] . The Holy See had to negotiate through the troubled waters in order to reclaim a certain freedom of action for the Church, within regimes which denied the Church the very freedom they so loudly professed. At this point it is also necessary to study the development of that issue, the ‘Roman Question’, which perhaps more than any other determined the specifics of Catholic identity during this era.

This study cannot ignore the main event of this period, the First World War, the cataclysm which in many respects marked the end of the liberal age marked by revolutions, animated by the faith that continual progress was possible, but one that was to end in disillusionment, in the trenches of this horrific and long war. In the words of Guardini, in his Letters from Lake Como [6] , this war ushered in an age without a name, an age marked by ambiguity – what we call ‘post-modernity’ – in other words, a war whose tragic legacy affected Europe on every level, the event which truly marked the end of a world order and the birth of a new one. Therefore, the fourth chapter is dedicated to mapping out this Congregation’s efforts in decisively steering the politics of peace of the Holy See during this period. As will become clear its role proves to be decisive in carving out a prestigious space for the Holy See on the international plane, both during and after the World War.

This in turn ushers us into a consideration of the aftermath of war, a period that can be defined by the rise of ever more aggressive nationalisms, an age which, in great measure, designed the European map as we now know it. The Congregation proved essential in strengthening the Church to answer the challenging demands posed by the rise of these Nation States.

Within each chapter, the themes discussed within the Congregation are considered according to a geographical division, and that according to the State to which the particular issue belongs. Further, the matters are considered according to a chronological order, that is the presentation of the particular issue develops according to the sessions, in which the matter was discussed. These sessions were the meetings during which the cardinals were called to express their opinion on the issue presented for their consideration. The divisions by chapter prove to be particularly challenging, especially the one between what could be considered on a superficial level as being an internal ecclesiastical affair, such as the establishment of a diocese or the nomination of a bishop, and issues of a more evident diplomatic and political nature, such as the stipulation of a concordat, given that the same issue can in most cases be considered under all these criteria. The very nature of the Congregation, especially after the Curial reform of Pius X, brings together the ecclesiastical, the political and the diplomatic into one whole. Therefore, it should be clear, that any division cannot be considered as responding to hard and fast rules, and is at most determined by the structural divisions necessary for an orderly presentation of such a study.

Since this study examines one particular Congregation, it obviously relies mostly on the information gleaned from the archive pertaining to this institution. A work that takes into consideration a whole pontificate, even if among the shortest of the twentieth century, still means that the relevant archival material is quite extensive. The decision to limit oneself to this one archive was based on the fact that more than sufficient material was available to study the subject matter. Given the nature and modus operandi of this Congregation, a study of the minutes of each session already provides the foundation for the development of each theme discussed. Together with the Ponenza [7] , prepared for every session, as well as the correspondence surrounding each session these provide a wealth of archival sources allowing us to form a reasonably comprehensive picture of the matters of interest to our study.

Within the limitations described, it is the aim of this study to shed light on the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs at a crucial moment of its history, that is its modus operandi in the period 1914-1922, and therefore, to clarify the breadth of ecclesial, diplomatic and political matters, demanding its consideration; to clarify its history and structure; to present its personnel during the period under study, their social background, formation, and career; to study their interventions during the sessions, as well as the proposed solutions and conclusions reached; to clarify the forma mentis as well as personal leanings determining the cardinals’ positions; to clarify the alliances formed by the cardinals during the sessions, their persistence and fluidity in view of the various issues considered; to further clarify the relationship between Benedict XV and, his Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri and the other cardinal members in view of the Congregation’s actions during this period; and to clarify the Congregation’s developing relationship with the wider Curial apparatus. Ultimately, it is the scope of this study to measure this Congregation’s effective role within the pontificate of Benedict XV and contribute to a better comprehension of this greatly neglected pontificate.

1. A historiographical survey

Regarding the institution under examination, studies have largely not gone beyond a consideration within a limited number of works devoted to the study of the Roman Curia in general. Fundamental for the history of the Curia remains the work, of Niccolò Del Re, La Curia romana. Lineamenti storico-giuridici [8] , but which necessarily suffers from the limitations of an encyclopedic endeavour that can hardly go beyond the essentials when dealing which such a diversified reality.

An exceptional study remains that undertaken by Lajos Pásztor nearly half a century ago, La Congregazione degli affari ecclesiastici straordinari tra il 1814 e il 1850 [9] , a challenge that has unfortunately in greater part not been met by others for the consecutive periods of its history. This work not only throws light on the controversial origins of this Congregation, its different types of personnel (members, consultors, secretaries, sub-secretaries), but also delves deep into its activity in this formative period of its existence, which already makes clear the challenges that it will continually face to carve out its role in the curial apparatus. This article is complemented by a useful appendix of the matters brought for discussion for each pontificate, divided by continent, various relazioni as to the functioning of its archive and the Congregation itself, as well as a piano di regolamento probably drawn up in 1845-1855.

Various articles dealing with the internal workings of this Congregation have been published by Roberto Regoli, such as his contribution to the volume La Sollecitudine Ecclesiale di Pio XI. Alla luce delle nuove fonti archivistiche, specifically entitled Il ruolo della Sacra Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari. This work departs from Gasparri and Scapinelli’s project [10] , the former, the secretary of the said Congregation at the time, a role the other would later occupy, for this Congregation’s survival in the light of the 1908 Curia reform by Pius X, through which it was intimately tied to the Secretariat of State. Following the Congregation’s reform by Pius XI, the Secretary of State, at the time Gasparri, becomes its prefect [11] . The author studies the various competencies of the Congregation, revealing a Gasparri in action in the context of a Curial Congregation. In studying the differences between Gasparri and Pacelli’s style of governance, Regoli notes, among other things, that the role of the Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari was expanded under Gasparri, a development which came to a halt with the arrival of Pacelli, but under which it did maintain a key role in the thirties, in approaching the deep political-religious crises in Spain and Germany [12] . Another interesting aspect is the role of and the reasons for the Congregazioni miste led by Gasparri, and the difference in administration from that of Pacelli. Regoli also mentions the different cardinals who participated in this Congregation, as well as how Pius XI’s intervention is greater under Gasparri than under Pacelli as with time the cardinals not nominated by him died and were replaced by cardinals he had appointed and were presumably more aligned to his will and style [13] . In contrast to the diversity of views among the cardinals under Gasparri, which on occasion he describes as a state of «completa confusione», the Congregazione under Pacelli appears «più allineata rispetto alla precedente», for «è ormai avvenuta una specie di svolta filo-governativa» [14] . As such Regoli’s observation also sheds light on the reasons for Pius XI’s replacement of Gasparri by Pacelli.

The article by the same author, Decisioni cardinalizie ed interventi papali. Il caso della Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari [15] , studies the internal dynamics of Pius XI’s Curia by examining those decisions taken by the Congregation members upon which the Pope intervened, either by totally changing the unanimous decision presented to him, or else by supporting one faction of cardinals against another. A simple statistical presentation of the frequency of these papal interventions, markedly more under Gasparri than under Pacelli, shows the difference between their governance styles, as well as the tenure of their relationship with the Pope. Regoli divides the issues between the provision of bishops, and other issues pertaining to Church-State relations: the diocesan associations in France, ecclesiastical property in Chile, military chaplains, and nationalistic tensions between the bishop and his clergy in Gorizia. He not only provides a schema for understanding the areas of influence of this Congregation [16] , but also underlines the various tensions and leanings within the Curia as represented by the cardinal members of this Congregation, as well as the relationship between the different Congregations brought out in the congregazione miste. Regoli shows to what extent the Pope is dependent on its decisions besides highlighting other intervening factors within the decisional mechanism. This article reveals the significance of this Congregation within the internal politics of the Roman Curia, further elucidating the Holy See’s actions in the political and diplomatic arena of the time.

Contemporaneous is Laura Pettinaroli’s article, Les ‘sessioni’ de la congrégation des Affaires ecclésiastiques extraordinaires: évaluation générale (1814-1938) et remarques sur le cas russe (1906-1923) [17] , providing a useful introduction to the various aspects of the Congregation, and the clarification of the official terminology used, plus a quantitative presentation of the archival material pertaining to the sessions available over its whole history. This study provides a bird’s eye view of the internal workings of the Congregation, of the matters discussed, of the geographical expanse of its interest and influence, of its personnel, and reveals many issues requiring deeper study, while the author herself takes up a profounder approach to the Russian cause.

Other sources concerning juridical matters, or the history of this Congregation include collections of documents relating to very specific issues or nations. The instructions issued by this Congregation during the pontificate of Gregory XVI to the bishops of the Kingdom of Sardegna [18] , and documents on Catholic Action in Italy [19] are examples of the latter. More important, even if undertaken in an apologetical sense, is the publication of document collections concerning the Holy See’s action during the Second World War [20] . Publications of sources relating to a particular geographical area include the collections regarding Spain published by Vincente Cárcel Ortí (although these extend only as far as the end of the pontificate of Pius X [21] and then taken up again for the issues regarding the Second Republic and the Spanish civil war) [22] ; those concerning Germany, (more specifically the Kulturkampf [23] published in a work edited by Massimiliano Valente) and documents relating to the ratification of the Napoleonic concordat [24] (published by Roberto Regoli). An extensive project undertaken by Hubert Wolf and his collaborators, provide an online critical edition of all the sources relating to Pacelli’s work as nuncio in Munich and Berlin [25] , a post subsequently taken up by Cesare Orsenigo [26] and by Thomas Brechenmacher. Similarly, Sergio Pagano, Marcel Chappin, and Giovanni Coco have published the «fogli d’udienza» [27] meticulously kept by Eugenio Pacelli as Secretary of State. Some documentation pertaining to Eastern countries has also been published, such as those regarding the Great Famine in Soviet Ukraine (1932-1933) [28] in a volume edited by Athanasius D. McVay and Lubomyr Y. Luciuk and those regarding Slovakia [29] by Emília Hrabovec. In all this, the relative absence of the publication of documentation pertaining to the pontificate of Benedict XV stands out, with only a few exceptions breaking this silence, such as the publication by Jan De Volder of four sessions of this Congregation about the Belgian cause and the Flemish question [30] and the study of Russian affairs undertaken by Laura Pettinaroli [31] , and the publication of documents relating to Lithuania by Rita Tolomeo and Silvia Camilli Giammei [32] .

Such a neglect is further highlighted when compared to the interest shown in the subsequent pontificate, that of Pius XI, concerning the study of the relationship between Propaganda Fide and the Secretariat of State through the specific cases relating to China and India by Hans de Valk [33] , and Frédéric Le Moigne’s study on the Congregation’s role in the choice of French bishops [34] .

2. A way forward

Although important steps have already been taken in clarifying the general history of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, its structure and modus operandi, a detailed study of its contribution to the furthering of the Holy See’s international policy as to effects on internal ecclesiastical politics regarding the Local Churches and on the internal dynamics of the Roman Curia remain for most pontificates largely lacking. It is the aim of the present study to try to address this void for Benedict XV’s pontificate, important, as will become increasingly evident, because it sheds light on a part of the history of this institution under study, and contributes to better understand the degree of influence it exerted on the Holy See’s action at a determinating historical moment for contemporary society: the crisis of World War I.

After considering the available historical sources, it is necessary to illustrate the Congregation’s structure from within, to clarify its role during the pontificate under consideration.

---

[1] Cfr J. F. Pollard, The Unknown Pope. Benedict XV (1914-1922) and the Pursuit of Peace, Geoffrey Chapman, London-New York 1999. Significant work has been done to amend for such a lack, as can be seen in the volume published by: A. Melloni (dir.), Benedetto XV. Papa Giacomo della Chiesa nel mondo dell’ «inutile strage», G. Cavagnini - G. Grossi (eds.), Il Mulino, Bologna 2017.

[2] N. Del Re, La Curia Romana. Lineamenti storico-giuridici, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1998, pp. 428-434.

[3] G. Feliciani, La Riforma della Curia Romana, in Le secrétaires d’État du Saint-Siège, XIXe-XXe siècles, in «Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée », 116, 2004/I, pp. 173-187.

[4] Pius X, Apostolic constitution ‘Sapienti Consilio’, par 1. 10o.

[5] A presentation of the history of this concept is at this stage useful since the present work will argue that the concept of ‘perfect society’ constituted one of the fundamental concepts determining policy regarding the Church-State relationship as it was developed and applied by the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs during the period being studied. The concept of Church as a ‘perfect society’ was developed during the eighteenth and nineteenth century in view of the Church-State relationship. Through such a theory the Church sought to emphasize its independence against unjustified interference from civil authorities in ecclesiastical affairs, as propagated by various movements, among which stood Gallicanism, Febronianism, Josephism, the French Revolution and its enduring influence, as well as the German Kulturkampf, all nationalistic in character and all sought to greatly limit any control or influence of Rome on the local churches. The term ‘perfect society’ applied to the Church was possibly first used by Franciscus Rautenstrauch (died 1785), and developed in the following century by canonists, namely Taparelli, Tarquini, and Cavagnis. These canonists used this term to refute the opposing concept used by protestant jurists, who held that the church was not a ‘perfect society’, but simply a collegium within the state, and in consequence subject to the State’s control. The term ‘perfect society’ was then applied by Catholic theologians, particularly from the pontificate of Pius IX to that of Pius XII, to speak of the very nature of the Church as a hierarchical and monarchic society. The term was also used by the magisterium in this period, and although it did not appear in the documents of Vatican I, it was included in the two main schemas prepared for its document on ecclesiology, which this council never had the time to discuss and vote. Although the 1917 code does not apply this term to the Church, Benedict XV used it in the document Providentissima Mater promulgating the Code. Such a juridical concept, developed as a theory to address historical problems in the Church-State relationship, was thus translated into an ecclesiology, which emphasized the juridical aspects of the Church to the detriment of its other charismatic aspects. Cfr P. Granfield, Nascita e declino della ‘societas perfecta’, in «Concilium», 18, 1982, pp. 955-964.

[6] Cfr R. Guardini, Letters from Lake Como, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh 1994.

[7] A Ponenza is a greatly informative document, one which takes the form of a printed report that describes in detail the history, development, previous decisions, as well as the advice of experts on the issue under study, which was prepared and sent to the cardinal members before each session. This was compiled by the Minutanti and was to contain all the information necessary for the cardinals to form a reasoned opinion on the matter presented for their consideration. The Ponenza ended with the Dubbio to which the cardinals had to respond during the session of the Congregation. It also included a Sommario of documents and correspondence relative to the issue being considered.

[8] N. Del Re, La Curia Romana. Lineamenti storico-giuridici, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1998, pp. 428-434.

[9] L. Pásztor, La Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari tra il 1814 e il 1850, in «Archivum Historiae Pontificiae», 6, 1968, pp. 191-318; Lajos Pásztor was a Hungarian historian who for years worked at the Vatican Secret Archives and was to become in 1968 the first lay professor to lecture at the Faculty of Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University.

[10] Cfr R. Regoli, Il ruolo della Sacra Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari durante il pontificato di Pio XI, La Sollecitudine Ecclesiale di Pio XI. Alla luce delle nuove fonti archivistiche. Atti del convegno Internazionale di Studio, Città del Vaticano, 26-28 febbraio 2009 a cura di in C. Semeraro, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 2010, pp. 191-192; cfr also R. Regoli, Congrégation pour les Affaires ecclésiastiques extraordinaires in Dictionnaire du Vatican et du Saint-Siège a cura di C. Dickes, Robert Laffont, pp. 309-312.

[11] Cfr R. Regoli, Il ruolo della Sacra Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari, p. 196.

[12] Cfr R. Regoli, Il ruolo della Sacra Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari, 205.

[13] Ibid. p. 225.

[14] Ibid. p. 226.

[15] Cfr R. Regoli, Decisioni cardinalizie ed interventi papali. Il caso della Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari in Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI. Pratiques romaines et gestion de l’universel a cura di L. Pettinaroli, École française de Rome, Rome 2013 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 467), pp. 481-501.

[16] In this regard, a further work by the same author must be noted, a dictionary entry in which after providing an ample description of the Congregation, including its structure, competencies and functioning, he concentrates particularly on a study of its influence, often limited, on Italian affairs. Particulary for our period he notes what can be considered the opposing aims regarding Italy of the pontificate of Pius X to that of Benedict XV, even if in both the Congregation’s influence over Italy remains marginal. Cfr R. Regoli, Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari e la Chiesa in Italia, in F. Lovison (dir.), Dizionario Storico Tematico ‘La Chiesa in Italia’, II, Dopo l’Unità Nazionale : http://www.storiadellachiesa.it/glossary/congregazione-affari-ecclesiastici-straordinari-e-la-chiesa-in-italia/

[17] Cfr L. Pettinaroli, Les sessions de la congrégation des Affaires ecclésiastiques extraordinaires: évaluation générale (1814-1939) et remarques sur le cas russe (1906-1923), in «Mélanges de l’Ècole Française de Rome. Italie et Mediterranée» 122, 2010/II, pp. 493-537; Laura Pettinaroli has researched particularly on the history of the Roman Curia and Vatican diplomacy, especially on the relations between the Holy See and the Slavic and orthodox world in the twentieth century.

[18] Cfr For the following bibliography: R. Regoli, Il Gran consiglio della Chiesa. La Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari, [unpublished]; cfr Congregazione degli affari ecclesiastici straordinari, Istruzione della Sacra Congregazione degli affari ecclesiastici straordinari in nome della Santità di Nostro Signore papa Gregorio XVI ai Reverendissimi Arcivescovi e Vescovi degli stati di terra ferma di S. M. il Re di Sardegna, Stamperia reale, Torino 1836.

[19] Cfr Congregazione degli affari ecclesiastici straordinari, Istruzione della Sacra Congregazione degli affari ecclesiastici straordinari sull’Azione popolare cristiana o Democrazia cristiana in Italia, con due appendici relative estratte dallo Statuto dell’opera dei congressi, Tipografia M. Rossetti, Fossano 1903.

[20] Cfr Actes et documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la seconde guerre mondiale a cura di P. Blet-R. A. Graham-A. Martini-B. Schneider vol. 1-11, LEV, Città del Vaticano 1965-1981.

[21] Cfr V. Cárcel Ortí, El Archivio de la S.C. de Asuntos Eclesiásticos Extraordinarios. I: Fuentes para la historia de España desde sus orígenes hasta la muerte de Pío IX (1878), in «Cuadernos de Trabajos de la Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma»,15 (1981) pp. 247-320; V. Cárcel Ortí, La Congregación des asuntos eclesiásticos extraordinarios y España (1814-1913), in «Archivum Historiae Pontificiae», 33, 1995, pp. 351-365.

[22] Cfr V. Cárcel Ortí, Pío XI entre la República y Franco: angustia del Papa ante la tragedia española, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 2008; V. Cárcel Ortí, La II República y la Guerra Civil en el Archivo Secreto Vaticano. Documentos del año 1931 (Agosto-diciembre), Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 2011.

[23] Cfr M. Valente (ed.), Vatikanische Akten zur Geschichte des deutschen Kulturkampfes. Edition der Sitzungsprotokolle der „Sacra Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari" 1880-1884, nach Vorarbeiten von Rudolf Lill, Egon J. Greipl und Martin Papenheim, Roma 2009: URL: www.dhi-roma.it/kulturkampf.htl.

[24] Cfr M. Di Pietro, Giornale della Congregazione speciale sulla ratifica della convenzione, Roma, 25 luglio-19 agosto 1801, in Roberto Regoli, Ercole Consalvi. Le scelte per la Chiesa, Ed. Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Roma 2006, (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 67), pp. 441-481.

[25] Cfr Hubert Wolf - Sascha Hinkel, I rapporti della nunziatura di Eugenio Pacelli (1917-1929): prime osservazioni su una fonte documentaria per lo studio dello stile di governo di Pio XI, in Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI. Pratiques romaines et gestion de l’universel a cura di L. Pettinaroli, École française de Rome, Rome 2013 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 467), pp. 25-36; Eugenio Pacelli. Kritische Online-Edition der Nuntiaturberichte von 1917-1929, http://www.pacelli-edition.de; Hubert Wolf (1959- ) is a German Church historian and a professor of Church history at the University of Münster.

[26] Cfr T. Brechenmacher, L’edizione digitale dei rapporti di Cesare Orsenigo, nunzio apostolico in Germania, inviati tra il 1930 e il 1939 alla Segreteria di Stato in Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI. Pratiques romaines et gestion de l’universel a cura di L. Pettinaroli, École française de Rome, Rome 2013 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 467), pp. 37-48; Thomas Brechenmacher (ed.), Berichte des Apostolischen Nuntius Cesare Orsenigo aus Deutschland 1930 bis 1939, vol. I, Das Jahr 1933, http://194.242.233.156/denqOrsenigo/index.php Thomas Brechenmacher (1964- ) is a German historian and a professor of modern history at the Universität Potsdam.

[27] Cfr I «fogli di udienza» del cardinale Eugenio Pacelli segretario di Stato, I, 1930 a cura di S. Pagano-M.Chappin-G. Coco, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Città del Vaticano 2010; Giovanni Coco, L’edizione delle udienze del cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, segretario di Stato in Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI. Pratiques romaines et gestion de l’universel a cura di L. Pettinaroli, École française de Rome, Rome 2013 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 467), pp. 49-61.

[28] Cfr The Holy See and the Holodomor: documents from the Vatican Secret Archives on the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Ukraine a cura di A. D. Mcvay-L. Y. Luciuk, University of Toronto, Toronto, p. 2011.

[29] E. Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918-1927 vo svetle vatikánskych pramenˇ ov, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 2012.

[30] Cfr J. De Volder, Benoît XV et la Belgique durant le Grande Guerre, Institut Historique Belge de Rome, Bruxelles-Rome 1996, pp. 271-285.

[31] Cfr L. Pettinaroli, Les sessions de la congrégation des Affaires ecclésiastiques extraordinaires: évaluation générale (1814-1938) et remarques sur le cas russe (1906-1923), in «Mélanges de l’Ècole Française de Rome. Italie et Mediterranée», 122, 2010/II, pp. 493-537.

[32] Lietuva bažnycˇ ios nepaprastu˛ ju˛ reikalu˛ Kongregacijos Archyvo dokumentuose (1919-1938). Lituania in documentis Archivi Congregationis pro negotiis ecclesiasticis extraordinariis, 1919-1938, a cura di R. Tolomeo-S.Camilli Giammei, 2 v., Kataliku Akademija, Vilnius 2014.

[33] Cfr H. de Valk, Le relazioni tra Propaganda Fide e Segreteria di Stato attraverso il caso della Cina e dell’India (1922-1934), in Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI. Pratiques romaines et gestion de l’universel a cura di L. Pettinaroli, École française de Rome, Rome 2013 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 467), pp. 323-342; Hans de Valk (1946- ), was for many years the director of historical studies at the Royal Institute of the Netherlands in Rome and specializes in the study of the relationship between the Netherlands and the Holy See, particularly in the study of Cardinal van Rossum.

[34] Cfr F. Le Moigne, Choisir des évêques pour la France. Le rôle des sessions de la Congrégation des Affaires ecclésiastiques extraordinaires (1925-1938), in Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI a cura di L. Pettinaroli, pp. 624-642; Frédéric Le Moigne, professor at the University of Brest, holds a doctorate in contemporary history and is involved in research with the ‘Centre de Recherche Bretonne et Celtique’.

I. The Institution

Personnel

As we embark on our attempt to shed light on the inner-workings of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, considering it within the whole decisional apparatus of the Roman Curia, in the particular context constituted by Benedict XV’s pontificate, it seems useful to start from the actors themselves, a study which sheds light on the very structure of the Congregation, and its place within the Roman Curia.

1.1 Cardinal members

During 1914-1922, the period under consideration, a total of 23 cardinals served as members of this Congregation [1] , of whom 7 created by Leo XIII, 11 by Pius X, and 5 by Benedict XV. Since three of those appointed by Leo XIII never participated in the Congregation following the election of Benedict XV, because they died soon after (Ferrata, and Di Pietro), or impeded by illness (Martinelli), the composition of the Congregation remains that established by Pius X. Although it included men, such as Merry del Val and De Lai, whom a certain historiography has sought to depict as opponents to Della Chiesa, these remained very active in the Congregation, for two reasons: firstly, in virtue of their role in the Curia these participated in this Congregation by right and secondly, claims to opposition have always to be read in a particular perspective. Leaving presumed past injustices as well as personal sympathies aside, both Merry del Val and De Lai remained in key roles within the Curia during the pontificate of Benedict XV, a sign of the Pope’s readiness to trust them, a hope not deluded considering their participation during the sessions. The brevity and the difficult circumstances of Benedict XV’s seven-year pontificate proved to be too short for him to have the material time necessary to change the member constitution of this Congregation. It also stands as evidence of Della Chiesa’s wisdom not to deprive himself of men with their vast experience in the inner workings of the Roman Curia and through an active diplomatic career whose constant advice proved to be of great value, a sine qua non , for the Church through the troubled waters of a world conflict and the challenges of a new world order.

The following are the 23 cardinals, listed by order of appointment, who participated in the Congregation, during Benedict XV’s pontificate:

1.2 Social milieu

The cardinals, by reason of their social status, their high office within the Church and the experience gained in various offices entrusted to them, formed part of different elites. Throughout the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the revolutions that transformed the political climate from the restoration to the liberal regimes, the cardinals preserved an elitist status within respectable society – a privileged position strengthened by the very nature of the work they performed requiring their active presence in the diplomatic and political arena, at court, and among the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie [2] .

The loss of the Papal States brought about a change in curial administration. The civil roles to govern the pontifical territories, traditionally occupied by cardinal legates, were now no longer needed. So, the breach of Porta Pia brought about not only a transformed papacy, but also necessitated various changes within the College of Cardinals. A marked clericalisation of this college takes place, as of the Roman curia in general, as lay cardinals are no longer appointed, and all significant offices are now entrusted to the clergy.

Traditionally, cardinals were mostly appointed from the aristocracy; however, a significant revolution can be traced regarding their social provenance throughout the nineteenth century. This evolution, from the aristocracy to a greater opening towards the rising middle class, mirrors the shift of power occurring within civil society. Regoli points out the similarity between the social milieu of the secular ruling classes and the ecclesiastical one. The pontificates of Pius IX and Leo XIII, could not but reflect such tendencies in the Church’s government, notwithstanding the aristocratic mentality that still prevailed within the Roman curia, where offices were, for the greater part, still reserved to the aristocratic classes [3] .

Nevertheless, with a greater number of cardinals being nominated from among the middle and even lower classes, even the Roman curia had to open up to such a transformation in its highest offices. According to Trincia, this transformation in the social origin of the cardinals, determined the various cardinalatial factions within the curia [4] :

Cioè la differenziazione interna al collegio cardinalizio è legata all’origine sociale dei porporati di Leone XIII, in quanto, nell’ultimo quarto del XIX secolo ricoprono cariche rilevanti di curia non solo aristocratici, ma anche borghesi e contadini [5] .

Such a transformation created its fair amount of significant challenges within the Curia, and the College of Cardinals that according to Trincia, was a primary reason for the manner in which the cardinals organized themselves into groups, factions, or even one might say ‘parties’, within what he calls the ‘parlamentino vaticano’ [6] as the result of their social background. This is hardly surprising, because it is normal for men to group with those with whom they share greater similarity of background and formation. Weber has shown that traditionally the social origin of the cardinals was strictly tied to the hierarchical structure of the Pontifical States, and as Trincia notes:

In quel contesto, la quasi totalità dei cardinali aveva origini aristocratiche. La forte maggioranza di membri di estrazione nobiliare era inoltre accresciuta dai cosidetti ‘cardinali della corona’, proposti, o per meglio dire imposti, dai regnanti di Austria, Francia, Spagna e Portogallo fra i prelati di sangue blu vicini alle posizioni delle rispettive dinastie [7] .

Such a tendency for ‘crown cardinals’ or as they became known according to the nineteenth-century nationalistic spirit, ‘national cardinals’, that is those candidates presented for creation by a sovereign or the government of a Catholic nation, gradually disappears in the contemporary age [8] .

According to Trincia, the nominations to cardinal members of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs show all the progression described, a change from aristocratic predominance to a greater opening to the middle and lower classes. So, whereas under Pius IX, in 1870, this Congregation counted among its members seven cardinals of noble origin, four from the middle classes, and only two of peasant origin, in 1910, under Pius X, the internal composition had been significantly inverted: the Congregation now consisted of five cardinals from among the aristocracy, six from the bourgeoisie, and significantly five members of lower social extraction. Such a transformation did not come about without great tensions within the curial apparatus [9] . The same social mobility can be seen as to the office of Secretary of State in this same period, as from 1870 to 1921, only two, Rampolla and Merry del Val were of noble origin, five (Antonelli, Simeoni, Franchi, Nina and Jacobini) came from within the ranks of the middle classes, whereas only Pietro Gasparri was of peasant origin [10] .

The same trend is confirmed among the 23 cardinals who served in the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs at some moment during the pontificate of Benedict XV. Among these only the minority were of sure noble birth, these being the brothers Vannutelli [11] , Serafini [12] , Granito Pignatelli [13] , Scapinelli di Leguino [14] , Valfrè di Bonzo [15] , Bisleti [16] , and Merry del Val [17] , the rest came from the bourgeoisie [18] , surely Pompilj, and Ferrata [19] , and probably Di Pietro, but with the majority coming from humbler classes, notably Gasparri, Agliardi, De Lai, Gotti, Lorenzelli, and Cagliero.

It can be affirmed that in this period there is great social mobility within the Church, with even its higher government offices open to those of humbler origins, and whose rise in the ecclesiastical career, therefore, cannot be attributed to their family’s fame, sphere of influence or net of acquaintances.

1.3 Formation

Having established that by the second half of the nineteenth century, unlike previous centuries, social status is no longer the determining factor for advancement in the ecclesiastical career, it is opportune to examine whether advancement is the fruit of formation, an issue which in part depends on the possibilities afforded during one’s upbringing, but on personal talent and capabilities.

Nearly all the cardinals mentioned, studied or at least completed their studies in Rome. All the cardinal members, except for two, Pompilj and Merry del Val, received their formation during the papacy of Pius IX. Therefore, this long but tumultuous pontificate must be considered the formative period of the cardinals who were at the head of Church government already during the later years of Leo XIII’s pontificate, namely Vannutelli Vincenzo in the case of the AA.EE.SS. and come to the fore during the subsequent pontificates of Pius X and Benedict XV. Ferrata, and Di Pietro, although still members of the Congregation when Benedict XV was elected, never participated in the sessions during his pontificate because they died months after his election. A third cardinal, Martinelli, never participated, as illness precluded his very participation in the conclave that elected Benedict XV, and he died on 4 July 1918. The following list indicates the date of ordination of each of our candidates:

To better understand the influence of formation on their career, one has to start from a brief consideration of the cultural situation in Rome in the second half of the nineteenth century [20] . As a number of authors [21] have shown, Rome, given its vocation as the centre of the Catholic world, the seat of the papacy, and for the first part of Pius IX’s pontificate, still the capital of the Papal states, enjoyed «un policentrismo scolastico e culturale del tutto particolare» [22] .

Therefore, Rome is characterized by a plurality of higher institutions offering formation, both on the academic level as well as through a more holistic approach in preparation for ordination or an ecclesiastical career. During the eighteenth century, these institutions, both universities and colleges, undergo several reforms [23] , starting with that of the Arch-university of Rome, the Sapienza, through Leo XII’s bull, Quod Divina Sapientia of 28 August 1824. For the first time, this reform centralised control of all the universities and schools in Rome in the hands of a Congregation for studies formed for this purpose. Such a reform was to a certain extent in line with what was taking place in other European states but given the confessional character it sought to perpetuate in these institutions, must be considered backward to what was taking place in similar institutions throughout the continent [24] . In opposition to the liberal spirit, Leo XII sought to imprint the degrees given with a greater spirit of orthodoxy and fidelity to the papacy [25] .

Like the reform in Germany, the reform of these higher institutions in Rome, sought to make the university an instrument at the service of the ideology of the state, or better a means of forming those who were to be of service to the state. This principle is evident in the group of cardinals we are studying as Fantappiè rightly notes in his parallelism between the German and the Roman university system:

L’idea dell’Università come vettore di omologazione ideologica nel quadro più generale del rapporto con lo Stato e con la società (in senso nazionale e poi imperiale per la Germania, in senso culturale e religioso per lo Stato pontificio); il rinnovato legame tra l’organizazzione universitaria, fondata sul modello della formazione generale e l’orientamento pratico della politica tedesca che poneva al centro dei suoi interessi il servizio statale cui corrisponderà, nello Stato pontificio, la funzionalizazzione degli studi alle esigenze degli organi centrali della Chiesa; la funzione preponderante e unificante assegnata, in ambedue i casi, alla scienza giuridica nei programmi di formazione e nei criteri di valutazione delle nuove leve di burocrazia statale o ecclesiastica [26] .

This is in fact confirmed by the formative itinerary followed by the above-mentioned cardinals, the majority of whom go beyond what was necessary for ordination. Besides studying philosophy and theology, they also held a doctorate in utroque iure, which is in both canon and civil law. A preponderance of jurists is clearly visible in the Roman curia, completely in line with the juridical spirit of Rome. The following chart illustrates the academic degrees held by each cardinal, all of whom, except, where otherwise indicated, completed their studies in Rome [27] :

By the nineteenth century, a candidate aspiring for the priesthood, an academic career, or one at the service of the Roman Curia or Pontifical diplomacy had a plurality of formation centres within the city to choose from. Beyond the Roman College [28] , there was also the Roman Seminary of the Apollinare [29] . In 1824, Leo XII transformed the Roman Seminary into an Athenaeum, endowing it with a faculty of theology, and four years later, with that of philosophy. A milestone in reforming these institutions, was that undertaken by Pius IX, who through the 1853 apostolic letters ‘ Cum Romani Pontifici’, instituted the Seminario Pio, as a regional seminary for the Papal states, and through ‘ Ad piam doctamque’, he set the ratio studiorum of the Roman seminary, further establishing that degrees in theology, philosophy and jurisprudence be considered equivalent to that of the Sapienza. This last decree emphasizes the centrality of study in the formation of the clergy. The reform of the ratio undertaken by Pius IX was very similar to that already decreed by Leo XII. What Pius IX sought to ensure, was the formation of clerics faithful to the papacy destined to work within the Roman Curia or else in the high offices of their dioceses [30] . On 16 August 1876, Pius IX completed his reform, by granting the Gregorian University, formerly the Roman College, a faculty of canon law, with the right to confer the same degrees as the Roman Seminary of the Apollinare. This concession was then confirmed by Leo XIII, through his brief ‘ Romani Pontifices’ of 29 July 1896 [31] . A study of our group of cardinals, once again shows that the majority were evenly spread between the Roman College, that is, the Pontifical Gregorian University, and the Athenaeum S. Apollinare, as evident from the following data:

Therefore, their distribution among the universities present in Rome would be the following:

Although the distribution of the formation is more or less equal in the case of the cardinals being considered, Fantappiè notes a difference between the canonical formation given at the Apollinare and the one offered at the Gregoriana. According to him, Pius IX in granting a faculty of canon law to the Gregoriana as well, sought to achieve a very particular aim, relevant to our studies, that is:

il papato abbia mirato a diversificare le funzioni dei due prestigiosi istituti, con l’affidare all’Apollinare – sotto il suo diretto controllo – il compito di riprodurre la propria classe dirigente ecclesiastica, e alla Gregoriana una funzione di universalizazzione della cultura romana.

However, as shown by the forma mentis shared by the cardinals and as will become evident through the study of the congregations themselves, both the Apollinare and the Gregoriana shared a theological and canonical background, which is not to say that did not assume different hues according to the professor concerned. However, the theological and canonical background in both universities remains determined by traditional Tridentine ecclesiology as in turn confirmed by Vatican I. This is characterized by emphasis on the definition of the Church as a perfect society, its hierarchical constitution, the papal primacy of jurisdiction, the vertical relationship between Pope and bishops, all strengthened by the ultramontane spirit of the time as well as the recent dogmatic declaration of Papal infallibility. All this was meant to instil a strong response in opposition to liberalism, the spirit of revolution and the constitutional model of the state it sought to bring about. ‘Romano-centrism’ was the narrative that prevailed, one that denied any form of collegial participation in the government of the universal Church [32] .

As regards the colleges, one must distinguish between the Pontifical seminaries and colleges erected by the popes for the formation of the Roman clergy or those coming from the Papal States, and other local or national colleges, founded to receive alumni from the various nations who sought to undertake or complete their studies in Rome [33] . Among the first category must be noted the Roman seminary [34] , the Seminario Pio, the Vatican Seminary and the Collegio Urbano dependent on Propaganda Fide. This first category of colleges had their own faculties. Among the second category of colleges, which did not have their own faculties, but sent their students to the Roman College or the Apollinare, of interest to our study is the Almo Collegio Capranica, and of a different nature the Pontificia Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici. The national colleges were founded in response to certain priorities in papal politics, especially flourishing during the nineteenth century and fully enter within the ultramontane movement and ‘Romano-centrism’, coming together in a spirit, which has been rightly called romanitas [35] . In the opposition of the Catholic Church to modern society, Rome becomes the model of models, as Battelli notes, «In tal senso Roma, con la sua plurima esemplarità, diveniva – come già si diceva – una sorta di modello nel modello: la romanitas come momento cardine della " societas perfecta"» [36] . As Fantappiè continues:

Già Gregorio XVI aveva affermato la particolare convenienza che i sacerdoti si recassero nella città dove gli apostoli avevano trasmesso e testimoniato la dottrina di Cristo. Pio IX accennerà all’importanza per i giovani chierici e sacerdoti di tutto il mondo di apprendere a Roma la sana dottrina cattolica. Leone XIII, infine, ribadirà e amplierà tali concetti ai boni Christi milites per l’erigendo collegio Lusitano [37] .

This is clearly the spirit with which our protagonists are imbued; this is their forma mentis, as is continuously evident during the discussions within the cardinalatial sessions – the spirit which continues to animate Roman Catholicism well into the twentieth century.

Our cardinals were distributed in the following colleges, which will be examined later:

The oldest seminary in Rome, the Almo Collegio Capranica [38] , bears the name of its founder, card. Domenico Capranica, who founded it in 1457, leaving it all his property. His intention was to establish a college offering a solid priestly formation to poor students, coming from Rome or from his diocese of Fermo, who could continue their studies in theology and canon law at the Roman university, so that they could rise to the cultural challenges of their time. He entrusted it to the three members of the Arch-confraternity of Our Saviour at the Sancta Sanctorum. These had the duty to surveil its administration and approve the rector who was to be elected annually by the students. The founder itself dictated its constitutions. The students accepted within the college, were to be between 15 and 35, already prepared to commence their studies, had to reside within the college, had to wear clerical garb, and had to receive Holy Orders within three years of their admittance to the college, and their doctorate within the seven years during which time they could remain within it. Following the fate of similar institutions, it was closed during the Napoleonic occupation of the city.

It was only reopened in 1807 by Pius VII who reserved the nomination of its rector to himself. The alumni were to follow their courses at the Roman college, now the Pontifical Gregorian University. The intent of