CAVOUR, CAMILLO BENSO di — Autograph letter of C. C. to Massimo d'Azeglio (February 1856) — Rome, archive of the Institute for the History of the Risorgimento.
39. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
III. The Holy See neither encouraged nor opposed Passaglia’s mission, but ordered him to maintain strict secrecy concerning the matter, fearing that it might be exploited to its detriment. And so it happened; for as soon as Passaglia was in Turin, the newspapers began to speak of negotiations for reconciliation that were under way. Consequently, a note in Rome’s official paper came to refute the unfounded rumors and at the same time to put an end to the initiative, in which so little good faith was perceived. Overwhelming evidence shows that, even as C. was beginning these proceedings, he did not shrink from weaving intrigues to corrupt Cardinal Antonelli and other influential prelates with money. The instructions he subsequently sent to the two negotiators in Rome, and the corresponding drafts of the articles (op. cit., pp. 253, 260, 275), appear to have been conceived in a spirit entirely different from that of the foundations agreed upon with Passaglia, although C. said that he had remained with him “in agreement on all points.” The clergy were subjected to the common law, with no regard whatsoever for the privilegium fori; civil personality was denied to religious corporations and institutes; it was demanded that episcopal appointments be made according to an electoral system to be agreed upon between the two powers, the government reserving in certain cases the right to vote, as well as the right to intervene in the first appointments; provision was made autonomously for the endowment of bishoprics, chapters, and parishes; the number of bishoprics was reduced from approximately 260 to 80; benefice property was bound in such a way that it could not be increased without the placet of the civil authority, etc. If one adds to all this the condition imposed upon the Pope (do ut des), namely, that he renounce temporal power in such a way as to leave no doubt “as to the actual reality and effectiveness of the renunciation,” one may judge what ideal value can be attributed to the Cavourian formula: “a free Church in a free State.” It does no more than affirm the mentality of Marco Minghetti, who, proceeding from the principle that legislative and coercive power belong, in the true and exclusive sense, only to the State, and that every other authority operating within the sphere of the State must be subordinated to it, implicitly excludes the thesis of two powers and two freedoms, and places religious society, like every other society, under the control and authority of the State; to which, though incompetent in the spiritual sphere, there nevertheless belongs the right to recognize the Church’s juridical personality and hence to subject its activity to control.Once the attempt at an agreement undertaken by C. had failed, even before the negotiations had begun, the modus vivendi devised by Napoleon III returned to the fore. It was based on a direct understanding between Paris and Turin, by virtue of which the king’s government was to undertake to guarantee the integrity of the small territory remaining to the Pontiff, leaving undecided the rights claimed by the Holy See over the other annexed territories; it also undertook to assume a proportionate share of the Papal government’s public debt, corresponding to the annexed territories. Since the Holy See remained outside the agreements, it had no choice but to take note of them, if it wished, when they were communicated to II. After that, France would withdraw its troops from Rome and grant recognition to the Kingdom of Italy. It is easy to imagine how distasteful such a convention must have been to C.; but he had to yield to the emperor’s will. Everything was already ready, and only the signatures of the high parties were lacking, when the sudden death of the great statesman occurred.
It has remained shrouded in mystery until now whether C. died within the bosom of the Catholic Church. It was officially announced at the time that he had died fortified by the Sacraments; at this Pius IX rejoiced and, as La Civiltà Cattolica reported, did not fail to offer further suffrages for him. Funeral services had been celebrated in many churches, in Italy and abroad, when a declaration by the marquis Gustavo, Camillo’s brother, appeared in the newspapers, denying the report that the count had recanted before his death. Several bishops and nuncios then turned to Rome for instructions; and Rome asked the ecclesiastical authorities in Turin how the events had actually unfolded. But Father Giacomo da Poirino, who, as previously arranged, had been summoned to assist C. in his final moments, withdrew into a mysterious silence. Suspecting that this was due to fear of reprisals, he was summoned to Rome and personally questioned by Pius IX. The friar, on the empty pretext that the matter involved sacramental secrecy, refused to say anything, limiting himself to declaring that, as far as he was concerned, he had done his entire duty. Everything that was then said and published in the newspapers about coercion and threats to which Father Giacomo was supposedly subjected in order to wrest the secret from him is pure invention. It is now generally believed that Father Giacomo was summoned to the dying man’s bedside when the latter was in the grip of delirium, and that his ministry was merely pro forma, carried out solely as a matter of political convention.
delletti, « Libera Chiesa, ecc. « genesi della formula cavouriana, in Nuova antologia, 29 (1875), p. 566; G. Giacometti, Die Genesis von C.s Formel, Aarau 1919; A. C. Jemolo, op. cit. Rapporti con la massoneria: P. Buscalione, C. e la massoneria, in Rassegna contemporanea, 8 (1914), pp. 213-43; A. Luzio, La massoneria e il Risorgimento italiano, I, Bologna 1925, pp. 265-87; P. Pirri, C. C., Costantino Nigro e il rinascimento della massoneria italiana, in Civ. Catt., 1926, II, pp. 309-24. Morte: M. Mazziotti, Il c. di C. e il suo confessore, Bologna 1916. Scarseggia sull'argomento una buona letteratura cattolica. Pietro Pirri