On Centres and Peripheries
“You know that the duty of the conclave is to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother cardinals have gone almost to the ends of the earth …”. With these words, which have been discussed incessantly, the newly elected Pope Francis addressed the assembled faithful gathered in Saint Peter’s Square for the first time on 13 March, 2013. The Argentinian Jorge María Bergoglio is the first pontiff from the Americas and the first non-European since 741. Those “ends of the earth” which Francis evoked metaphorically in his speech were no longer as such or, at least, had ceased to be as such the moment he came to occupy the papal throne. His election, then, illustrated one of the most profound changes the Catholic Church had experienced in the previous two centuries; one which affected the relationship between what could be termed the centre and periphery of Catholicism, that is, Europe and the rest of the world.
At the quantitative level, one can appreciate these changes in the evolution of the percentage of the global Catholic population which comes from each continent or macro-region. Thus, according to the report titled “The Global Catholic Population” by the Pew Research Center, while in 1910, 24% of the world’s Catholic population came from Latin America, only a century later, in 2010, this had risen to 39% of the total. Still more spectacular was the growth in number of Catholics who came from Sub-Saharan Africa, which went from 1% to 16% of the global Catholic population, and Asia, which grew from 5% to 12% during the same period of time. Meanwhile, the most adversely affected continent was Europe, which saw its influence drastically reduced from 65% to 24% of the world’s Catholic population.1
With some exceptions, such as Poland, Europe has ceased to be a land of religious vocation and has become a recipient of ecclesiastics from all over the world, especially from Latin America and Africa. Thus, for example, in some Spanish dioceses, clergy of Latin American extraction is as much as 20% of the total.2 Indeed, according to Vatican statistics, this was reflected in the fact that, between 2010 and 2015, the total number of priests increased by 17% and 13% in Africa and Asia, while in the Americas it remained stable and in Europe and Oceania it fell by 5% and 2% respectively. One also sees these percentages in the episcopate. In 2015, the Americas accounted for 37.4% of all prelates, followed by Europe (31.6%), Asia (15.1%), Africa (13.4%) and Oceania (2.5%).3 These changes were reflected in the difference in composition between the First Vatican Council (1870), in which Europeans predominated, and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), whose prelates came mostly from outside Europe.4
Although slowly, these changes at the global level were also gradually reflected in the evolution of the Roman Curia. Ever since the appointment of the first cardinal in the Americas, the Archbishop of New York, John McCloskey, in 1875 and the first Latin American cardinal, the Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Joaquim Arcoverde, in 1905, the make-up of the conclaves began to change. During the papacy of Francis, these changes have for the first time resulted in a majority of non-European cardinals (sixty-seven) in contrast to their European counterparts (fifty-four), which in any future conclave increases the possibility of electing another pope from outside Europe.5 Changes in the curia have been slow but they do reflect the growing strategic importance of Asia and Africa at the heart of the Catholicism as well as the awareness that Latin America is an increasingly disputed terrain.
The roots of these transcendental changes in the Catholic Church date back to the nineteenth century and, especially, the papacies of Pius IX (1846–1878) and Leo XIII (1878–1903). During those turbulent years of the ottocento, the Holy See redirected its activity on a global scale by promoting missions all over the world, developing a denser and more centralised episcopal structure and diplomatic network, creating schools to train the clergy both in Rome and the rest of the world and fomenting standardised venerations. Simultaneously, Catholics began to look towards Rome and the papacy in search of a point of reference. The Holy Father went from being a distant figure, whose authority was limited by feudal structures, privileges and prerogatives, to becoming an object of devotion throughout the whole world. The loss of the Papal States during the Italian unification reinforced still more this symbolic centrality. Rome regained its primacy in Catholic life and became the scenario of mass pilgrimages and multitudinous religious ceremonies which attracted the faithful from all over the world.
However, this was not just a movement from Rome towards the rest of the world and vice versa but it was also built on deep and dense transnational and transatlantic networks which were woven throughout the Catholic world. Thanks to the spectacular development of different means of transport and communication, political and social confrontations acquired international significance, multiplying demonstrations of support on the part of Catholics from other parts of the world. Both lay and church figures sought international references to foster religious life in their respective localities and dioceses: secular associations, guilds, seminaries, religious orders, venerations, the press, and so on.
Ultimately, the election of an Argentinian pope was the result of a long process of integrating the regional churches of Latin America into the global Catholic Church. For a long time and on account of its privileges and prerogatives, the Hispanic Monarchy acted as a mediator between Latin American Catholics and the pope in such a way that, previously, the Latin American Church was more a part of the monarchy than the papacy. Direct communication with the Holy See was prohibited, there were no nuncios nor any diplomatic representatives on the continent, the publication of bulls and other papal documents was subject to strict royal examination and authorisation (Regium exequatur), convents and monasteries could only be created by royal authority, prelates only enjoyed their full prerogatives once they were granted by the monarch, rather than following their investiture, and so forth.6
Thus, for example, the papal bull issued by Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei (1794), which condemned the Synod of Pistoia’s Janseist propositions, took seven years to be published in Spain and New Spain due to these royal privileges.7 One could argue without any exaggeration that Latin America was almost terra ignota for the Holy See. In this sense, it is worth recalling that the first pope to understand the reality of the Americas first-hand was Pius IX, who in his youth had been part of the Muzi diplomatic mission in the 1820s. Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pius XII, would be the first secretary of state to visit the Americas in 1934 and it was not until Paul VI that a pope first made an official visit to the continent during the Second Episcopal Conference of Latin America in 1968.
Following the successful independence movements of the Latin American countries, the establishment of contacts between the Holy See and the new republics was hindered by their revolutionary background and nature, Spanish pressure to prevent the Vatican recognising them and the wishes of their governments to exercise royal patronage. This situation meant that many reforms were not carried out and that appointments of new prelates were suspended for several decades. In some regions, church structures were weak and insufficient. The process of constructing national churches paralleled the creation of some of the new Latin American republics. Three different solutions were offered to the question of integrating the old colonial churches into the new republics: the separation of church and state (liberalism), state control of religion (regalism) or the strengthening of ties between Rome and the local churches.8 Both the first and last solutions left the doors open to internationalising the local churches in that they implied breaking down the barriers of patronage.
Lastly, the figure of Francis allows one to evoke a set of central questions: Why was Francis presented throughout the media as the first Latin American pope? Why was the Episcopal Conference of Latin America (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, CELAM), an institution of which Bergoglio was a part, the first such conference to bring together several nations? Why is there a Pontifical Commission for Latin America, yet no equivalent for any other Catholic macro-region? What unites the countries and churches of countries as diverse as Peru, Mexico and Argentina in the imagined space of Latin America? Since when and why has there ever been talk of the Latin American Church? Ultimately, these questions can be summed up in the following: why do we grant unity to a geographical space and speak about it naturally as if its existence were evident?9
From a methodological perspective, as Roberto di Stefano points out astutely, any discussion of the existence of a Latin American Church is extremely complicated, given that there are very clear differences amongst the national churches; not just when it comes to their importance and economic power, but also on account of the make-up of their faithful, their traditions, and so on. In the mid-nineteenth century, and parallel to the rise of the concept of Latin America, different projects were drawn up to unite the churches in this region with the aim of confronting their common enemies, while at the same time serving to reinforce their ties with the Holy See. Although one has to wait until the 1870s to find explicit references within Catholic discourse to the term “Latin America”, these projects comprised the countries in this region and made a decisive contribution to articulating a Latin American Catholic identity. The proponents of these initiatives travelled thousands of kilometres in order to get to know the reality of Catholicism in the Latin American countries, make comparisons, import models and design common strategies.10 Both this project as a whole and its contents more specifically evolved in the twentieth century, taking on a new political, social and religious dimension with Liberation Theology.
This book therefore seeks to study the origins of these processes in the second half of the nineteenth century. It has often been pointed out that, until the Plenary Council of Latin America in 1899, the different national churches remained relatively isolated. Thus, for example, the philosopher and liberation theologian Enrique Dussel argued that, following independence, “each church became an island and there would be no more communication for almost a century”.11 Beyond such considerations, the aim of this book is, precisely, to demonstrate the energy and initiative of much of the Latin American church hierarchy during the second half of the nineteenth century.
In this way, it will examine, by means of their travels, correspondence and essays, the numerous points of contact amongst Latin American clergymen as well as with their European colleagues, their contribution to key moments in the nineteenth-century history of the Catholic Church like the First Vatican Council, the importing of both European models and their American equivalents and the development of initiatives common to the whole Latin American Church. Moreover, we will see how, owing to its particular dialogue with modernity, democracy and the freedom of worship, Latin American Catholicism became a point of reference for its European counterparts.
Likewise, as an initial hypothesis, I want to point out that the growing international dimension of its churches ran parallel to the development and consolidation of ultramontanism in Latin America. In this sense, the founding of the Latin American Pius College (Colegio Pío Latinoamericano) in Rome in 1858 played a key role in training the continent’s church elite, moving it towards a more “Romanised” Catholicism in that it fomented a certain sense of collegiality amongst the Latin American hierarchy. Between 1858 and 1950, this college trained 1,500 priests, of whom 173 reached Episcopal see and seven were appointed cardinals.12 Not coincidentally, we will see many of its former pupils behind demonstrations of adherence to the Holy See as convinced defenders of papal infallibility. As Lisa M. Edwards points out, this institution played a key role when it came to shape
the modern Latin American Church in both its internal organization and in its relations with the papacy and the faithful. Their education and later careers have served as a critical part of a broader strategy to modernize and Romanize the Latin American Catholic Church in the face of rising secularism.13
In order to address these issues, I will focus mainly on initiatives originating in Chile, although I will also take into account other primary sources from Argentina and Uruguay. In the nineteenth century, Chile became a country of reference for Catholics in the Americas as well as one of the main promoters of Romanising and institutionalising the Latin American Church. Indeed, two Chilean churchmen, the priest José Ignacio Víctor Eyzaguirre and the Archbishop of Santiago de Chile Rafael Valentín Valdivieso, were the driving forces behind, respectively, the Latin American Pius College and the idea of a Plenary Council of Latin America. Moreover, the extraordinary correspondence amongst clergymen like the already-mentioned Eyzaguirre and Valdivieso, alongside the likewise Archbishop of Santiago de Chile, Mariano Casanova, the Archbishop of Montevideo, Mariano Soler, and the active Argentinian diplomat, Félix Frías, serves as a point of entry for other countries in the Americas and Europe and allows us to observe the forging of Latin American ultramontane transnational networks in the second half of the nineteenth century.
For a Transnational History of Catholicism
For a long time, the global dynamics of Catholicism were overlooked by a historiography that, with a clear national bias, preferred to focus on analysing the phases and forms of church-state conflict in each country and, in general, avoided the international dimension of this friction. Nor, until recently, had works on global and transnational history or studies of globalisation processes taken any special interest in religion. As such, historiography has preferred to address other issues like economic history, social/gender history and the history of nationalism from a supranational perspective.14
This relative oversight has been offset by two twentieth-century global histories by Cristopher A. Bayly and Jürgen Osterhammel. For both authors, the analysis of religion is essential to understand the staggering transformations which took place in that century. Both studies incorporate recent critiques of secularisation to demonstrate the intense renovation as well as globalisation experienced by different religions. Moreover, Bayly places special emphasis on the spectacular process of centralisation, hierarchical organisation, homogenisation and globalisation experienced by different religions in the contemporary era.15 Religion has been gradually incorporated into projects on transnational history such as The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History (2009) and the recently published Geschichte der Welt, 1750–1870 (2016), in which religion is shown to be an integral part of the global changes experienced during the nineteenth century, focusing amongst other issues on the transformation of the religious sphere, transnational exchanges and the dialogue between religions and colonial empires.16 Especially innovative has been Rebekka Habermas’s revision of the classic subject of missions from a transnational perspective. Specifically, she analyses international networks of missionary people and institutions in Europe and the world as well as their impact on metropolises through exhibitions, propaganda, associations, and so forth.17
For its part, there have been important contributions to the study of religions within the framework of the globalisation process in the field of sociology. Indeed, even the very definition of what today we understand as “world religions” would be a product of globalisation and western attempts to classify eastern religions.18 The Canadian sociologist Peter Beyer points out how changes in religion were not just another dimension of globalisation, but a constitutive element of its development and one without which one cannot understand the process itself.19 Lastly, although in the more properly historiographical field, Vincent Viaene and Abigail Green have shown how globalisation favoured the emergence of international religious movements.20
Within the framework of studies on Christianity, this global perspective was present from the beginning in those works which, although from a Eurocentric point of view, approached the history of missions throughout the world. Little by little, this approach with colonialist connotations was abandoned once the studies diversified by introducing issues such as gender models and devotional cultures. This renovation took shape in the wave of studies on World Christianity and the group surrounding the journal Studies in World Christianity.21 In this same vein would be those studies on the history of Christianity as a polycentric movement with a diversity of regional centres, cultural expressions, indigenous initiatives and denominational varieties.22 The latter works are designed more for Protestant churches rather than the Catholic faith, in which there is a centre, Rome. This has been questioned and its authority occasionally blurred but it has maintained its status as the symbolic centre of the religion.
The global transnational perspective also came quite late to the specific field of Catholicism. This delay is paradoxical since, as Margrit Pernau notes, Catholicism has often been accused of being a religion which is incompatible with nationalist projects on account of Roman orientation, transnational hierarchy and transnational loyalty.23 José Casanova has been one of the pioneers to approach Catholicism from this perspective. The Spanish sociologist demonstrated how Catholicism has experienced an intense process of globalisation, Romanisation and centralisation between the nineteenth century and the present which implied
The reconstruction, reemergence, or reinforcement of all those transnational characteristics of medieval Christendom that had nearly disappeared or been significantly weakened in the early modern era: papal supremacy and the centralization and internationalization of the Church’s government; the convocation of ecumenical councils; transnational religious cadres; missionary activity; transnational schools, centers of learning and intellectual networks; shrines as centers of pilgrimage and international encounters; transnational religious movements.24
The incorporation of these supranational perspectives has enabled the revision of old topics of study such as the Society of Jesus, the missionary phenomenon, Marian devotions, educational institutes, confessional parties, religious social activism and social Catholicism.25 In the same way, the study of conflicts between clericalism and anti-clericalism has been deeply enriched by understanding them as transnational phenomena which drew on the experiences of other countries all over the world.26
In the historiography of Catholicism in the Americas, these global transnational approaches have converged with the Atlantic perspective. As such, in the modern era there has been debate over that “Atlantic Catholic”, focusing on issues like hybridisation processes, missions, relations between empire and religion, the effects of the counter-reformation, and so forth.27 Alongside the colonial period, other aspects explored include the twentieth century and the development of Catholic activism as well as the echoes of social Catholicism, creating a dialogue between the dynamics of different local churches and the Catholic Church as a whole.28 In the field of anthropology, Valentina Napolitano made an important contribution in her analysis of the religious tensions, wishes and representations of the Latin American migrant community at the heart of Catholicism, Rome.29 In a very similar sense, Peter R. D’Agostino examined how Italian Catholic immigrants in the United States were, in spite of the distance, tied to the Vatican cause, demonstrating their adhesion to and solidarity with the Chair of Saint Peter from the Risorgimento to the emergence of Fascism.30
Lastly, it is surprising that a phenomenon like ultramontanism has barely been examined from a transnational perspective. As such, the historiography has centred on its development in specific countries or provinces but not addressed it as a strictly transnational phenomenon.31 The studies of the KADOC group at the University of Leuven constitute one of the main exceptions to this in their analysis of the transnational ultramontane mobilisation around the Black International. Nevertheless, these works have been essentially limited to the European frame and have not integrated any studies of Catholicism in the Americas or at the global level.32
Beyond the Alps and the Andes: Romanisation and Ultramontanism
What you want to make of the Roman Republic is the Republic of a few million chimerical republicans; we want to make it everyone’s second homeland.33
Comte de Falloux, 1849
Ultramontanism is a concept which was born in the context of sixteenth-century religious controversies to attack those who defended Papist positions. Indeed, ultramontanism literally means beyond the mountains, that is, beyond the Alps. The polemical nature of this concept as well as its excessive identification with anti-liberalism and legitimism, overlooking the existence of liberals amongst its ranks, has resulted in French historians opting to use the concepts of “Romanisation” and/or “Roman ecclesiology”.34 In this regard, the German debate has been less rigid, oscillating between viewing ultramontanism as Catholic fundamentalism or as a movement which was present at the founding of Catholic democracy in Germany.35
Aware of such limitations, the Belgian historian Vincent Viaene differentiated at least four types of political Catholicism in the nineteenth century which varied according to their acceptance of the independence of the temporal and their pragmatic attitude towards the state: intransigent ultramontanism, intransigent liberal Catholicism (God and freedom), “transigent” liberal Catholicism and “transigent” ultramontanism (authority and freedom).36 Austin Gough also noted that ultramontanism and devotion to Rome could lead both to liberal conclusions and those of Montalembert and his circle as well as intransigent positions which came close to legitimism.37
Furthermore, the definition of this concept is still more evasive given that its meaning and reach evolved over the course of the nineteenth century. Thus, for example, the field of what one could define as ultramontanism would be considerably reduced during the violent offensive by L’Univers, the Civiltà Cattolica and other newspapers against liberal Catholics and those who opposed the declaration of papal infallibility in the 1860s and 1870s. This aggressive campaign left in the realm of heterodoxy if not heresy many Catholics who, although they disagreed with the intransigent line, were in favour of Romanisation and the hierarchisation of the Catholic Church. This would be the case of the liberal Catholic Charles de Montalembert, the favourite target of Louis Veuillot and other intransigents. Nonetheless, only a few years earlier, in the 1850s, Montalembert argued in favour of clearly ultramontane positions:
This was the question, thank God, the existence of Gallic, German, Hispanic and Lusitanian Churches, which originated in the pride of some bishops and the false science of some doctors, sadly complicit in the meddling of temporal power and Jansenist heresy. The winds of revolution have passed over these artificial creations, and have reduced them to dust. There is nothing left standing now but a single Catholic Church, more united, more subordinate to its leader than at any other time in its history.38
The fact that intransigent ultramontane currents of a legitimist nature were hegemonic in nineteenth-century continental Europe has distorted our perception of this movement. If we extend the framework of studies to the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Latin America, the clarity of intransigent commitment becomes notably more blurred. In Varieties of Ultramontanism, Jeffrey von Arx points out that the form ultramontanism took depended a lot on the particular context of its development. Thus, for example, the Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Manning, was a clear defender of papal infallibility, discipline and uniformity in that he believed that the Catholic Church had to speak with a single voice in such a hostile context as well as one which, at the same time, was so favourable to the British form of liberalism.39
Much of the historiography on the Catholic Church in Latin America has opted, in the same way as its French colleagues, to use the concept of “Romanisation”. Beginning with the pioneering studies on Brazilian Catholicism by Raphael della Cava and Roger Bastide in the 1950s and 1960s, its use was progressively consolidated, especially through the efforts of the Comisión para el Estudio de La Historia de las Iglesias en América Latina y el Caribe (the Commission for the Study of the History of the Churches in Latin America and the Caribbean), an institution which was inspired strongly by the theses of Liberation Theology.40 Romanisation would be seen as an external process which weakened the Latin American Church, a foreign mentality which limited its capacity to react to social changes at the local level.
However, as Ítalo Domingo Santirocchi, Lisa M. Edwards and Ignacio Martínez, amongst others, have noted, this vision of Romanisation implied that the Latin American Church was a mere passive receiver of European trends, overlooking the active role of actors in the Americas when it came to diffusing this current.41 In fact, Latin American actors themselves, in order to face up to the challenges which their own churches were experiencing, sought references beyond the Andes, the Atlantic and the Alps. In this ultra-mountain and oceanic journey, paraphrasing the old Latin refrain, all roads led to Rome, reinforcing the links between the Catholic world and its centre.
Likewise, Santirocchi has shown how the concept of “Romanisation” is also innately controversial since it was used negatively by critics of papal infallibility in church debates of the 1860s and introduced into Brazil within the framework of the debate over regalism during the last years of the Brazilian Empire. As an example of this influence, one could mention the 1877 translation into Portuguese of Der Papst und das Concil (1869) by Ignaz von Döllinger under the pseudonym of Janus.42 This German theologian would be one of the most impassioned enemies of papal infallibility and would, in fact, end up being excommunicated on account of his refusal to comply with the resolutions of the First Vatican Council. Döllinger identified Romanisation with repression and the annihilation of the local life of the Church:
Rome is to act as a gigantic machine of ecclesiastical administration, a Briareus with a hundred arms, which finally decides everything, which reaches everywhere with its denunciations, censures, and manifold means of repression, and secures a rigid uniformity. For the Church-ideal of the Ultramontanes is the Romanizing of all particular Churches, and above all the suppression of every shred of individuality in National Churches.43
In spite of its controversial nature, the text is very interesting because it makes a distinction between an ultramontane worldview and a process, Romanisation. Thus, notwithstanding the different ideological declensions of ultramontanism, it is undeniable that the Catholic Church experienced a successful process of centralisation, homogenisation and hierarchical organisation in the nineteenth century. Good proof of this is the feeling of déjà vu that one has when analysing nineteenth-century Catholicism in the various countries of Europe and the Americas, in which we can observe, in almost simultaneous fashion, the implantation of the same religious orders, associations, brotherhoods, celebrations and devotions; the appearance of similar demonstrations of adhesion to the Holy See and solidarity with the papacy; and reading the same newspapers and authors of the ultramontane pantheon. Nevertheless, the Romanisation of the Church cannot be reduced simply to Roman cultural influence. Rather, it was a question of a Catholicism looking towards Rome, yet which drew from other active and innovative points of reference for the nineteenth-century Church such as Lourdes, Paris and Louvain, whose activities were sanctioned and recommended by the Holy See.
Likewise, Döllinger’s observations show that ultramontanism cannot be reduced solely to the defence of papal infallibility but that it was also based on the centralisation, homogenisation and globalisation of Catholicism. While the variants could be infinite, followers of ultramontanism coincided, to different degrees, in the importance of these three principles. By the same token, although they may even mistrust or advise against the dogmatic declaration of papal infallibility, some, like the Bishop of Orleans, Félix Dupanloup, defended its pre-eminence and did not hesitate when it came to displays of solidarity in favour of the pope during the most difficult moments of Italian unification.
The association of ultramontanism with legitimism and religious fundamentalism has meant that it has often been described as an anti-modern, retrograde and archaic movement.44 However, the rich variety of the means employed by ultramontane sectors has meant that historians have reassessed the relationship between modernity and religion. With few exceptions, this debate on ultramontane modernity or nineteenth-century Catholicism has been put forward within the field of German historiography.45 Thus, in his Deutsche Geschichte (1983), Thomas Nipperdey already noted how the “anti-modern Church used the most modern methods” in the nineteenth century.46
In 1989, Urs Altermatt placed the relationship between modernity and religion at the centre of the debate in his Katholizismus und Moderne (1989). On the basis of critiques of such a diffuse and ambivalent concept as modernity, the Swiss historian pointed out that, while the conservative Catholic movement emerged as a reaction against modernity, this did not stop it from using modern methods like associations, parties and newspapers to defend its positions. This mobilisation of the population through different associations had the unexpected effect of the gradual emancipation of laity at the heart of the Catholic Church.47 In the same vein, Wilfried Loth highlighted the use that Catholics had made of modern rights like freedom of assembly, opinion, the press and association as well as parliaments to defend their positions.48 It is, precisely, the use of such resources that led Victor Conzemius to defend ultramontanism as an “attempt by nineteenth-century Catholic masses to facilitate the transition to modernity through the selective appropriation of the organizations and means of communication present in modernity”.49
The Belgian historian Vincent Viaene went a step further in demonstrating how the use of such methods was intended to shape global Catholic public opinion in favour of the pope. This allowed for the incorporation as vehicles of opinion not only the press and Catholic parties, but the entire “phenomenon by which Catholicism became a public declaration—mass pilgrimages, holy years, congresses, manifestations and collections of signatures, collections, monumental art and popular imagery”.50 At the same time, the Holy See became an actor within this international public sphere, strengthening the pope’s image and charisma while his diplomatic presence increased concurrently. He was put forward as an arbitrator of peace and attempted to present himself as a spokesman for humanity and its dignity.51
Regarding the diffusion of ultramontanism, two interpretative models have been suggested.52 The first contends that ultramontanism spread around a vertical axis which went from above (the pope) to below (the faithful), the result of a controlled hierarchical structure; or vice versa, as a spontaneous movement of the faithful.53 Whether from above or below, the truth is that, in spite of reaffirming his control over the Church, the pope was receptive to some incentives and initiatives proposed by the grassroots.54 In second place, and closely related to this vertical axis, is a centripetal (from the world to Rome) or centrifugal (from a symbolic centre to the end of the world) perspective. Thus, for example, a centripetal definition from bottom to top would be that of Tocqueville when he noted that, “it is, rather, the pope who is incited by the faithful to become the absolute owner of the Church and not the faithful who are invited by him to submit to this authority”.55
Nevertheless, Olaf Blaschke contends, these two models are insufficient when it comes to explaining the dissemination of ultramontanism since not all these movements necessarily passed through Rome and, for that reason, he proposes analysing transnational and transatlantic ultramontane networks.56 Catholics looked towards Rome, but they also took into account as positive examples Belgium, Ireland and the Americas while at the same time viewing as opposing models the France of revolution and Italy of unification.57 This argument allows one to understand ultramontanism and its spread as a multidirectional phenomenon which, promoted from different parts of the globe, would facilitate consolidating a worldwide feeling of belonging to a global Catholic community led by the pope.
Finally, the triumph of ultramontane postulates within the Church, together with the spectacular centralisation, homogenisation and hierarchical structuring of Catholicism in barely a century may lead us to believe that this was a harmonious, inevitable and resistance-free process. However, from the outset it faced opposition from both Gallican and Jansenist church cultures and from Catholic liberals. Moreover, its success depended on different national dynamics as well as the strength of church structures and the existence of local privileges and traditions.
As such, for example, the weakness of its church structures made Argentina much more responsive to the development of ultramontanism there than in Mexico or Peru, where there were very powerful local churches replete with privileges and traditions.58 Indeed, the construction of a Romanised Church required the disappearance of the prerogatives and structure of the Old Regime.59 Thus, in order to establish a more efficient and centralised chain of command between the pope and the faithful, it was necessary to reinforce the power of prelates as conveyor belts and subject the cathedral chapters, which until that time had acted as counterpoints to the bishops, to his jurisdiction. Furthermore, the cathedral chapters also opposed Rome’s recuperation of the prerogative of direct nomination of prelates, since it reduced their possibilities of gaining entry into the episcopate and cut short the political-religious careers which had been cultivated under their patronage.60 Similarly, canons also mistrusted the foreign clergy and the national clergy trained in Europe given that they could become an obstacle to internal promotion.61
Likewise, there were other factors which could provoke resistance to or tension within the development of ultramontanism. Austin Gough underscores the class component since, in contrast to the Gallican episcopate which was mainly drawn from the social elite, clergymen from a humbler background gained entry to the episcopate as part of the Romanisation process.62 Popular and indigenous traditions also generated disputes and seriously limited the expansion of this homogenised and centralised Catholicism. Occasionally, these tensions led to prophetic rebel movements but, in general, such manifestations were put down or resulted in negotiation processes between the institution and the faithful which ended up creating a hybrid religion.63
“The Global Catholic Population”. Accessed on 7 January, 2017 at http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/.
“Unos 500 curas extranjeros ejercen en España en iglesias o con inmigrantes”. Accessed on 7 January, 2017 at http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/02/26/espana/1330254111.html.
“El Anuario Pontificio 2017” and the Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae 2015. Accessed on 7 January, 2017 at https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/es/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/06/ter.html.
José Casanova, “Globalizing Catholicism and the Return to «Universal Church»”, in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion and Fading States, Boulder, Westview, 1997, pp. 121–143, p. 135.
Irene Savio, “El papa Francisco ‘desoccidentaliza’ la jerarquía de la Iglesia católica”, in El Confidencial, 19 November, 2016. Accessed on 7 January, 2017 at https://www.elconfidencial.com/mundo/2016-11-19/papa-francisco-conclave-iglesia-catolica_1291505/.
Christian Hermann, L’Église d’Espagne sous le patronage royal (1476–1834): Essai d’ecclésiologie politique, Madrid, Casa de Velázquez, 1988, p. 43.
Emilio La Parra López, “Iglesia y grupos políticos en el reinado de Carlos IV”, Hispania Nova: Revista de historia contemporánea, 2 (2001–2002).
Roberto Di Stefano, “Vino viejo en odres nuevos. Las vías de la secularización en la Argentina decimonónica”, in Pedro Rújula and Javier Ramón Solans (ed.), El desafío de la Revolución, Granada, Comares, 2017, pp. 313–328.
An idea included in the work by Martin W. Lewis and Kären E. Wigen, The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997.
Nor were the challenges they had to face exactly the same. Secularisation varied according to the respective national churches. In countries in which the Church was very powerful economically and politically, like Mexico, the French model of a complete secular break was adopted. In others, such as Argentina, the decision was taken to secularise some institutions and functions while reserving certain niche activities for the Church. Roberto Di Stefano, “Le processus historique de sécularisation et de laïcité en Amérique latine”, in Arnaud Martin (ed.), La laïcité en Amérique latine, París, L’Harmattan, 2015, pp. 11–47, p. 14.
Enrique D. Dussel, Historia de la iglesia en América Latina. Medio milenio de coloniaje y liberación. (1492–1992), Madrid, Mundo Negro, 1992, p. 154.
Kenneth P. Serbin, Needs of the Heart: A Social and Cultural History of Brazil’s Clergy and Seminaries, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 2006, pp. 92–94.
Lisa M. Edwards, Roman Virtues. The Education of Latin American Clergy in Rome, 1858–1962, New York, Peter Lang, 2011, p. 1.
Dominic Sachsenmaier, “Global History, Version: 1.0”, Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte, 11.2.2010, accessed 29 January 2017 at http://docupedia.de/zg/Global_History?oldid=123220. For an assessment of these contributions from the perspective of global and transnational history as well as common ground, see Margrit Pernau, Transnationale Geschiche, Gotinga, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2010, pp. 117–131; Vincent Viaene, “International History, Religious History, Catholic History: Perspectives for Cross-Fertilization (1830– 1914)”, European History Quarterly, 38–4 (2008), pp. 578–607 and Olaf Blaschke, “Einführung: Katholizismus- und Protestantismusforschung vor der Herausforderung der Globalgeschichte”, in Olaf Blaschke and Javier Ramón Solans (ed.), Weltreligion im Umbruch. Transnationale Perspektiven auf das Christentum in der Globalisierung, Frankfurt, Campus Verlag, 2019, pp. 9–55.
Christopher A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914, Oxford, Blackwell, 2004, and Jürgen Osterhammel, The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2015 [2009].
See, amongst others, the terms “Buddhism”, “Christianity”, “Islam”, “Missionaries”, “Religion”, “Religious Fundamentalism” and “Religious Pilgrimage” in Akira Iriye and Pierre-Yves Saunier (eds.), The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History. From the mid–19th century to the present Day, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 and Sebastian Conrad, “Religion in der globalen Welt”, in Akira Iriye and Jürgen Osterhammel (eds.), Geschichte der Welt, 1750–1870. Wege zur modernen Welt, Munich, C.H. Beck, 2016, pp. 559–625.
Rebekka Habermas, “Mission im 19. Jahrhundert—Globale Netze des Religiösen”, Historische Zeitschrift, 287–3 (2008), pp. 629–679 and ibid., “Wissenstransfer und Mission. Sklavenhändler, Missionare und Religionswissenschaftler”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 36–2 (2010), pp. 257–284.
Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions. Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 2005.
Peter Beyer, Religions in Global Society, Abingdon, Routledge, 2006, p. 14. See also Peter Beyer and Lori Beaman (ed.), Religion, Globalization and Culture, Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Vincent Viaene and Abigail Green (eds.), Religious Internationals in the Modern World. Globalization and Faith Communities since 1750, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Sheridan Gilley and Brian Stanley (eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity, World Christianities, c. 1815–c. 1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Klaus Koschorke, “Polycentric Structures in the History of World Christianity”, in Klaus Koschorke and Adrian Hermann (eds.), Polycentric Structures in the History of World Christianity, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014, pp. 15–27 and Klaus Koschorke, “Einführung: Globale Perspektiven der Christentumsgeschichte”, in Klaus Koschorke (ed.), Etappen der Globalisierung in christentumsgeschichtlicher Perspektive, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012, pp. 1–36.
Nevertheless, this has not been translated into historiographical interest and, for example, studies in Germany have centred on demonstrating the homogeneity of the German Catholic milieu. Margrit Pernau, Transnationale Geschichte, p. 119.
José Casanova, “Globalizing Catholicism”, p. 122.
On the Jesuits see, amongst other works, Thomas Banchoff and José Casanova (eds.), The Jesuits and Globalization: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Challenges, Washington D.C., Georgetown University Press, 2016; on the missions, the standout work is Claude Prudhomme, Stratégie missionnaire du Saint-Siège sous Léon XIII (1878–1903) Centralisation romaine et défis culturels, Rome, École Française de Rome, 1994. On religious institutes, see Urs Altermatt, Jan de Maeyer and Franziska Metzger (eds.), Religious Institutes and Catholic Culture in 19th and 20th Century Europe, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2014. On Marian devotions, see Agnieszka Halemba, “From Dzhublyk to Medjugorje: The Virgin Mary as a transnational figure: Transnationalism and the nation state”, Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung, 57–3 (2008), pp. 329–345 and Roberto Di Stefano and Francisco Javier Ramón Solans (eds.), Marian Devotions, Political Mobilization, and Nationalism in Europe and America, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, pp. 1–25. On Christian Democracy, see Olaf Blaschke, “Transnationale Parteigeschichte. Das Zentrum zwischen kleindeutschem Zuständigkeitsbereich und «schwarzer Internationale»”, in Andreas Lisenmann and Markus Raasch (eds.), Die Zentrumpartei im Kaiserreich. Bilanz und Perspektiven, Münster, Aschendorff, 2015, pp. 339–366 and Wolfram Kaiser (eds.), Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007. On social Catholicism, see Susana Monreal, “Le catholicisme social dans le cône sud-american. Étude Comparative des cas argentin, chilien et uruguayen”, in Jan de Maeyer and Vincent Viaene (eds.), World Views and Wordly: Religion, Ideology and Politics, 1750–2000, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2016, pp. 125–147 and Stephen J.C. Andes and Julia G. Young (eds.), Local Church, Global Church: Catholic Activism in Latin America from Rerum Novarum to Vatican II, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 2016.
Christopher Clark and Wolfram Kaiser (eds.), Culture Wars: Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth Century Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Manuel Borutta, Antikatholizismus. Deutschland und Italien im Zeitalter der europäischen Kulturkämpfe, Gotinga, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2010; Lisa Dittrich, Antiklerikalismus in Europa. Öffentlichkeit und Säkularisierung in Frankreich, Spanien und Deutschland (1848–1914), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2014; Yvonne Maria Werner and Jonas Harvard (eds.), European Anti-Catholicism in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2013 and Olaf Blaschke, “Der Aufstieg des Papsttums aus dem Antiklerikalismus”, Römische Quartal Schrift, 112-1/2 (2017), pp. 21–35.
Megan Armstrong contends that there remain questions to consider such as the religious agenda of monarchs and the Pope’s influence in the Atlantic. Megan Armstrong, “Transatlantic Catholicism: Rethinking the Nature of the Catholic Tradition in the Early Modern Period”, History Compass, 5/6 (2007), pp. 1942–1966 and Allan Greer and Kenneth Mills “A Catholic Atlantic”, in Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra and Erik R. Seeman (eds.), The Atlantic in Global History, 1500–2000, New Jersey, Pearson, 2007 pp. 3–19.
Stephen J.C. Andes, The Vatican Catholic Activism in Mexico and Chile: The Politics of Transnational Catholicism, 1920–1940, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014 and Stephen J.C. Andes and Julia G. Young (eds.), Local Church, Global Church.
Valentina Napolitano, Migrant Hearts and The Atlantic Return: Transnationalism and the Roman Catholic Church, New York, Fordham University Press, 2016. In the same vein, one should mention a study of Guadalupe as the patron saint of Latin American immigrants in the United States in Linda B. Hall, Mary, Mother and Warrior: The Virgin in Spain and the Americas, Austin, University of Texas Press, 2004.
Peter R. D’Agostino, Rome in America: Transnational Catholic Ideology from the Risorgimento to Fascism, Chapel Hill, The North Carolina University Press, 2004.
Vicent Viaene, “International History”, pp. 578–607 and Olaf Blaschke, “Transnationale Parteigeschichte”, pp. 339–366.
Emiel Lamberts, (ed.) The Black International, 1870–1878, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2002.
Alfred de Falloux, Discours de M. De Falloux ministre de l’instruction publique, sur les affaires de Rome. Assemblée législative. Séance du 7 Août 1849, Paris, Jacques Lecoffre, 1849, p. 17.
Philippe Boutry, “Ultramontanisme” in Philippe Levillain (dir.), Dictionnaire historique de la papauté, Paris, Fayard, 1994, p. 1651–1653; Bruno Horaist, La Dévotion au Pape et les catholiques français sous le pontificat de Pie IX (1846–1878). D’après les Archives de la Bibliothèque Apostolique Vaticane, Rome, École Française de Rome, 1995, pp. 9–22; Yves Bruley, “La romanité catholique au XIXe siècle: un itinéraire romain dans la littérature française”, Histoire, Économie et Société, 21-1 (2002), pp. 59–70; and Vincent Petit, Église et Nation. La question liturgique en France au XIXe siècle, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2010.
See Victor Conzemius, “Ultramontanismus”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 34 (2002), pp. 253–263, p. 253.
Vincent Viaene, Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius IX (1831–1859): Catholic Revival, Society and Politics in 19th-Century Europe, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2001.
Augustin Gough, Paris and Rome: The Gallican Church and the Ultramontane Campaign, 1848–1853, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 60–79.
Charles de Montalembert, Des intérêts catholiques au XIXe siècle, Brussels, JB de Mortier, 1852, p. 42.
Jeffrey von Arx “Introduction”, in Jeffrey von Arx (ed.), Varieties of Ultramontanism, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 1997, pp. 1–11. Its variation according to the national context is also noted in Victor Conzemius, “Ultramontanismus”, p. 253.
Mauricio de Aquino, “O conceito de romanização do catolicismo brasileiro e a abordagem histórica da Teologia da Libertação”, Horizonte, 11 (2013), pp. 1485–1505 and Ítalo Domingos Santirocchi, “Uma questão de revisão de conceitos: Romanização—Ultramontanismo—Reforma”, Temporalidades, 2–2 (2010).
Ítalo Domingos Santirocchi, Questão de Consciência. Os ultramontanos no Brasil e o regalismo do Segundo Reinado (1840–1889), Belo Horizonte, Fino Traço, 2015; Ignacio Martínez, “Circulación de noticias e ideas ultramontanas en el Río de la Plata tras la instalación de la primera nunciatura en la América ibérica (1830–1842)”, Historia Crítica, 52 (2014), pp. 73–97; and Lisa M. Edwards, Roman Virtues, p. 79.
Ítalo Domingos Santirocchi, “Uma questão de revisão de conceitos”.
Ignaz von Döllinger, “Die Speyerische Seminarfrage und der Syllabus (1865)”, in Ignaz von Döllinger, Kleinere Schriften gedruckte und ungedruckte, Stuttgart, Franz Heinrich Reusch, 1890, p. 215.
There is a reflection on modernity in relation to reactionary Catholic movements in Pedro Rújula and Javier Ramón Solans, “Paradojas de la reacción. Continuidades, vías muertas y procesos de modernización en el universo reaccionario del XIX”, in Pedro Rújula and Javier Ramón Solans (eds.), El desafio de la revolución. Reaccionarios, antiliberales y contrarrevolucionarios (siglos XVIII y XIX), Granada, Comares, 2017, pp. 1–11.
In the 1980s, Boutry and Cinquin highlighted the use of modern methods in nineteenth-century French pilgrimages. See Philippe Boutry and Michel Cinquin, Deux pèlerinage au XIXe siècle. Ars et Paray-le-Monial, París, Beauchesne, 1980. Subsequently, Michel Lagrée called attention to the fact that, in the nineteenth century, Catholicism had benefited from the enormous progress made as a result of the Industrial revolution, especially in the fields of communication, transport and mass production. See Michel Lagrée, Religion et modernité. France XIX–XXème siècles, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2002.
Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte. 1800–1866. Bürgerwelt und starker Staat, Múnich, Beck, 1994 (1983), p. 412.
Urs Altermatt, Katholizismus und Moderne. Zur Sozial- und Mentalitätsgeschichte der Schweizer Katholiken im 19. Und 20. Jahrhundert, Zúrich, Benziger, 1991 (1989), pp. 49–62.
Wilfried Loth, “Der Katholizismus –Eine globale Bewegung gegen die Moderne?”, in Heiner Ludwig and Wolfgang Schroeder (eds.), Sozial- und Linkskatholizismus: Erinnerung–Orientierung–Befreiung, Frankfurt am Main, Knecht, 1990, pp. 11–31 and ibid., “Einleitung”, in Wilfried Loth (ed.), Deutscher Katholizismus im Umbruch zur Moderne, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1991.
Victor Conzemius, “Ultramontanismus”, p. 253. See also Victor Conzemius, “Ultramontaner Katholizismus: eine Verschwörung gegen die Moderne”, in Eckhard Jaschinski (ed.), Das Evangelium und die anderen Botschaften: Situation und Perspektiven des christlichen Glaubens in Deutschland, Nettetal, Steyler, 1997, pp. 9–29.
Vincent Viaene “Reality and Image in the Pontificate of Leo XIII”, in Vincent Viaene (ed.), The Papacy and the New World Order: Vatican Diplomacy, Catholic Opinion and International Politics at the Time of Leo XIII, 1878–1903, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2005 pp. 9–29, p. 13.
Ibid., p. 28 and José Casanova, “Globalizing Catholicism”, pp. 131–133.
Olaf Blaschke, “Transnationale Parteigeschichte”, pp. 339–366.
Arthur Hérisson, “Une mobilisation international de masse à l’époque du Risorgimento: l’aide financière des catholiques français à la papauté (1860–1870)”, Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle, 52 (2016), pp. 175–192. See also John F. Pollard, Money and the Rise of the Modern Papacy: Financing the Vatican 1850–1950, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 31; Philippe Boutry, “Ultramontanisme”, pp. 1651–1653; id. “Le mouvement vers Rome et le renouveau missionnaire », in Jacques le Goff and René Rémond (eds.), Histoire de la France religieuse. 3. Du roi Très Chrétien à la laïcité républicaine XVIIIe–XIXe siècle, Paris, Seuil, 2001, pp. 403–427.
Vincent Viaene “Reality and Image”, p. 28.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Œuvres complètes. Tome VI. Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville, Paris, Michel Lévy Frères, 1867, p. 352.
Olaf Blaschke, “Transnationale Parteigeschichte”, pp. 339–366.
Patricia Londoño Vega, Religion, Culture, and Society in Colombia: Medellín and Antioquia, 1850–1930, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 306.
Roberto di Stefano, “La excepción argentina. Construcción del Estado y de la Iglesia en el siglo XIX”, Procesos: revista ecuatoriana de historia, 40 (2014), pp. 91–114 and ibid., “Vinos viejos”.
Roberto di Stefano, El púlpito y la plaza. Clero, sociedad y política de la monarquía católica a la República rosista, Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI, 2004, p. 245.
Cecilia Adriana Bautista García, “Hacia la romanización de la Iglesia mexicana a fines del siglo XIX”, Historia Mexicana, LV-1(2005), pp. 99–144 and Lucrecia Raquel Enríquez, “Reserva pontificia o atributo soberano? La concepción del patronato en disputa. Chile y la Santa Sede (1810–1841)”, Historia Crítica, 52 (2014), pp. 21–45.
Cecilia Adriana Bautista García, Las disyuntivas del Estado y de la iglesia en la consolidación del orden liberal: México, 1856–1910, Mexico City, El Colegio de México, 2012, pp. 344–351.
Augustin Gough, Paris and Rome, pp. 72 and 91.
Patricia R. Pessar, From Fanatics to Folk: Brazilian Millenarianism and Popular Culture, Durham, Duke University Press, 2004 and Edward Wright-Rios, Revolutions in Mexican Catholicism: Reform and Revelation in Oaxaca, 1887–1934, Durham, Duke University Press, 2009.