PIO X, POPE, BEATIFIED. - Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, born in Riese, a village in the diocese of Treviso, on 2 June 1835 to Giovanni Battista Sarto, municipal usher, and Margherita Sanson, a seamstress, was the second of ten children. After completing his early studies, not without sacrifice, in nearby Castelfranco, at the age of fifteen, through the intervention of his fellow townsman Cardinal Monico, Patriarch of Venice, he obtained a free place at the Seminary of Padua, where he immediately distinguished himself for the sharpness of his intellect, nobility of character, and love of virtue.
Ordained priest on 18 September 1858, he served as chaplain for nine years in the small village of Tombolo, then for the same period as parish priest in the large town of Salzano, demonstrating outstanding qualities as a spiritual guide. In 1875 he was called to Treviso as episcopal chancellor, spiritual director of the Seminary, canon of the Cathedral, and, during the vacancy of the see, vicar capitular. Elected at the end of 1884 as Bishop of Mantua, in nine years of wise and strong governance he reorganized catechesis, renewed the Seminary, carried out two pastoral visits, held a Synod, and countered socialist propaganda with charitable and social assistance institutions. Created cardinal in June 1893 and promoted to the patriarchal see of Venice, his *exequatur* was delayed until November 1894. His principal concerns were the Seminary and the clergy, catechism and the Opera dei Congressi, the spread of Catholic press and socio-economic works. He ensured the dignity of liturgical functions and sacred music. He fostered the establishment of a civic administration based on cooperation between Catholics and moderates. He revealed the goodness of his heart through acts of inexhaustible charity, veiled in sincere humility and austere simplicity.
The chronicle of the 1903 Conclave was published by the *Revue des deux mondes* in an article by Cardinal Mathieu, Archbishop of Toulouse. Among the 62 cardinals gathered, two factions had formed: to continue unchanged the policy of Leo XIII, or to change it, especially in relation to France; AMPOLLA (v.), Secretary of State under Leo XIII. Before the morning ballot on 2 August, to the astonishment and dismay of all, Cardinal Puzyna, Archbishop of Cracow, presented, on behalf of Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, an exclusion veto against Cardinal Rampolla. Cardinal Oreglia di Santo Stefano, Dean of the Sacred College, vigorously protested.
Cardinal Rampolla’s noble words followed, and in the subsequent ballot he retained his 20 votes; indeed, in the afternoon he gathered 30. The rumor that Cardinal Sarto’s election was determined by the bold and improper interference of secular power is therefore false. After mature deliberation and freely, the cardinals agreed on Sarto as a man whose exemplary life and outstanding pastoral qualities earned the admiration of all who knew him. He revealed himself to others. “I am unworthy, I am incapable, forget me,” he implored, weeping. “It was precisely the reasons he adduced,” testifies Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, “that made his pleas ineffective, for they were so full of humility and wisdom that they increased the esteem and votes of the eminent cardinals. We came to know him through the profound sincerity of his words.” On the morning ballot of 4 August, Sarto received 50 votes. To the ritual question of the Dean, he replied: “If it is not possible for this cup to pass from me, may the will of God be done. I accept the pontificate as a Cross.” He took the name Pius X in memory of the popes who had suffered most in recent times.
In the Roman See, Pius X immediately revealed to the astonished and admiring world sovereign greatness, heroic virtue, governing wisdom, and captivating goodness, in an ascent year by year more evident along the sublime path of holiness. Of medium height, of robust build, with a pleasant countenance; his eye lively and penetrating, his gait slow, almost weary, naturally majestic; his gestures broad, measured, paternal; his speech simple, familiar, persuasive with a marked Venetian accent. From his person there emanated an attraction of gentleness and at the same time of strength that captivated everyone. His quick and penetrating intelligence, his strong and resolute will, his frank and naturally impetuous temperament, yet contained by firm self-mastery. His long ministerial experience fostered an innate good sense, which expressed itself in immediate intuition of problems and swift, appropriate solutions. Extremely sensitive of heart, he possessed a vigilant sense of duty, nourished by reflective and courageous prudence. He faced grave responsibilities with decision; his soul serene in an unshakable faith in the designs of Providence. His love of justice made him austere, at times severe, in demanding obedience, defending the rights of God, and asserting the independence of the Church. His natural goodness, sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit and rendered more endearing by an enchanting simplicity of manner, radiated from him in countless acts of charity, always intelligent, often heroic. A keen judge of men, of their potential and weaknesses; understanding and merciful toward the erring, yet uncompromising and most severe against errors; an enemy of every kind, even veiled, of nepotism; a lover of genuine spirit of poverty; faithful and constant in friendship; cordial and generous toward his collaborators; averse to flattery; resolute in pursuing solely the apostolic ideal—he inspired in both near and far the fascination of a holiness all the more compelling for being so unassuming and unpretentious.
From Leo XIII, Pius X inherited a heavy and complex situation, of which the notorious Austrian interference in the Conclave was one revealing sign. In Italy, the separation between Church and State, a consequence of the complex and thorny Roman Question, required a prudent course of action that would safeguard on the one hand the sacred rights of the freedom and sovereignty of the Church, and on the other take into account the supreme religious interests of the Italian people in their historical and civic evolution. In France, the radical-Masonic government threatened to break the Concordat and sought to subjugate the episcopate and clergy to the Third Republic. In other Catholic countries of Europe and America, anticlericalism was promoted by Freemasonry, which now gave it a legal veneer in parliaments and courts, now displayed it in vulgar forms through a venomous, blatant, blasphemous press and not infrequent public demonstrations.
The spirit of the age is the total negation of the supernatural world; it is the spread of a practical atheism that gives rise to the rejection of Catholic tradition and dissolves faith into a vague sentiment of religiosity. Positivism, in its expression as dialectical materialism, and idealism, in the guise of a two-faced subjectivism, align in a rationalist syncretism Christianity with all other historical religions. The social, political, and economic world suffers from a capitalist conception protected by a liberalism that, elevating freedom to the status of a myth, favors the exaggerated wealth of the few and creates the wretched poverty of the many. Social inequality, exacerbated by industrial development, offers socialism—materialist in origin and anticlerical by habit—excellent ground for its claims through the weapon of the strike. Dynamism, the offspring of technology, insinuating itself even into the sanctuary, proclaims the primacy of action, relegating the so-called passive virtues to monasteries.
Within the Catholic field itself, there is a ferment not without danger and deviation. Catholic laity, though organizing themselves into flourishing associations of varied economic, union, charitable, and political structures, nonetheless feel, due to the audacity and intemperance of a few, a discomfort that threatens unity, concord, and the life of nascent Christian democracy. Within the Church’s internal life, there is a desire to reform structures worn by time; a renewal of ecclesiastical discipline and an updating of pastoral care are called for, especially regarding sacred studies, catechesis, liturgy, and sacred music. The poison of modernism creeps subtly everywhere.
In the light of God, Bl. Pius X is conscious of the full task that Providence entrusts to him. His hope is in the Lord.
The man reveals his mettle and gives the measure of his awareness from the very first days. And in the supreme apostolic office from the chair of Peter on 4 Oct. 1903, two months after his election, the diagnosis of the disease afflicting society is precise: apostasy from God. The remedy? Supported by the virtue of God—so he writes—we proclaim that in Our pontificate We have no other program than this: to restore all things in Christ, so that Christ may be all and in all... The interests of God will be Our interests, for which We are determined to expend all Our strength and life itself. It is the Pope’s duty to lead all men—both those who obey and those who command—back to the path of equity in both public and private life, on both the political and social terrain. The Pope cannot in any way separate the things that pertain to faith and morals from politics. A sublime mission... which, transcending these fleeting goods of the earth, extends to eternity, which, unrestricted by local boundaries, embraces all the nations of the earth; which includes the defense of the Gospel in every sphere, even in the stormy realm of politics; which directs Our solicitude not only to the faithful but to all men for whom Christ died (address to the cardinals, 3 Nov. 1903).
To this luminous program the reforming Pope remains faithful until his death. Among his collaborators is Cardinal Raffaele Merry del Val, his most faithful Secretary of State. “I have chosen him,” said Pius X, “because he is a polyglot. He knows the problems of all countries, is very modest, is a saint... I have chosen him for his piety and his priestly spirit.” And to the same cardinal: “We shall work together and together we shall suffer for the love and honor of the Church.”
I. Pius X and France
The situation, while Leo XIII was still alive, had grown tense when, on 23 Dec. 1902, Minister Combes, bypassing the normal procedure of the nuncio, proposed to the Holy See, in a manner far from respectful, the appointment of two ecclesiastics as bishops and the transfer of a third. The Holy See’s negative response was motivated by the lack of suitability of the candidates. A exchange of notes between the French government and the Holy See revealed the Masonic government’s evident intention to find a pretext for breaking the Concordat of 1801. In Apr. 1904, Loubet, President of the Republic, contravening the practice introduced after 1870, paid an official visit to the King of Italy. The Holy See immediately protested. The ambassador to the Vatican was recalled, and the bishops of Dijon and Laval were forbidden to go to Rome to respond to the Pope’s formal invitation. Diplomatic relations were broken off (30 July 1904). The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate approved (3 July–9 Dec. 1904) the law on the separation of Church and State and the abrogation of the Concordat. As a consequence, every legal recognition of the Church in France was denied by the Republic. Pius X responded on 11 Feb. 1906 with the encyclical *Vehementer nos* and condemned the law of separation, denouncing the government’s abuses: the seizure of the Archbishop’s Palace of the nunciature, the confiscation of ecclesiastical property, the suppression of religious congregations, the expulsion of their members; worship restricted to church services alone; bishops and clergy stripped of every state subsidy. To detach the faithful from Rome and to gain control over the clergy, the government proposed cultural associations. Pius X thwarted these schemes by publicly condemning them in the encyclical *Gravissimo officii munere* (10 Aug. 1906). With a remarkable example of concord and fidelity to the Roman See, bishops, priests, religious, and laity were ready to face hunger rather than contravene the Pope’s directives. The Church in France, freed from every state interference, gained a better spiritual structure and brought great comfort to the heart of the Pontiff, who rewarded such fidelity by consecrating 14 new bishops in St. Peter’s.Alongside this epic struggle between Church and State, the stance of *Action Française* insinuated itself, drawing together monarchist conservatives and antidemocrats and attempting to win adherents. On the opposite shore stood the group of Catholic republicans, the so-called “abbés démocrates.” The verbal excesses and theologically erroneous attitudes of the followers of the *Sillon* of Marc Sangnier forced Pius X to condemn as dangerous a trend that tended to withdraw the faithful from the necessary discipline of the hierarchy.
Other sorrows afflicted the heart of the Pontiff. In Portugal, the revolution, having overthrown the monarchy, persecuted the Church: ecclesiastical property was confiscated, religious congregations were suppressed, bishops and priests were exiled. In Spain, the rupture of diplomatic relations made the situation of the religious congregations critical. In Germany, the outcry by liberals and Protestants against the judgments on the Reformers contained in the encyclical *Edita saepe* (26 May 1910).
Yet amid many thorns, roses are not lacking. In the Anglo-Saxon countries of Europe and America, the Church regained ground and grew ever stronger and more robust. A spirit of tolerance allowed it to reorganize communities and dioceses.
II. P. X AND ITALY
The increasingly aggressive advance of subversive parties and the relentless persecution by Masonic sects make the development of Catholic life in Italy a matter of grave concern. The commendable Opera dei Congressi and its associated committees, spread like a strong network across all dioceses, keep Catholics organized, but the only influence they manage to exert in the civic and political sphere is the defense of moral principles and the protest of the trampled rights of the Holy See. Yet the need to be present in public life becomes more serious and urgent with each passing day. Therefore, in 1909, Pius X, without revoking the *non expedit* (v.), tempered it by granting bishops the faculty to allow Catholics to vote in elections for higher motives of public good. Thus, 24 Catholic deputies entered the Italian Parliament, while in the 1913 elections, with the Catholic Electoral Union better organized, the number of elected deputies reached about one hundred. The Roman Question also began to be framed not as a simple and straightforward restoration of temporal power, but rather as a guarantee of the freedom and independence of the Pope. The Masonic side responded with sectarian and ahistorical attitudes: a typical example is the outrageous speech by Nathan, mayor of Rome and Grand Master of Freemasonry, delivered on September 20, 1910. Significantly opposed to this was the Social Week of Catholics in Milan in 1913, with the "authorized" speeches by Monsignor A. Rossi and Count G. Dalla Torre.
III. P. X, RESTORER OF CHRISTIAN LIFE
"To make Christ reign, nothing is more necessary than the holiness of the clergy" (letter to Cardinal Respighi, 1904): this was the guiding principle of the Pope in reorganizing the Roman seminaries at the Lateran, in promoting regional seminaries in central and southern Italy, in establishing uniform norms and adapting them to the times for the study and discipline of priestly candidates, in sending apostolic visitors to seminaries and dioceses, and in fostering the development of sound and solid ecclesiastical culture. The founding of the Biblical Institute in Rome, a true university of Sacred Scripture, the revision of the Vulgate entrusted to the Benedictines, and the *motu proprio* on the study of the philosophy of St. Thomas in schools are the principal documents of his concern to have a learned clergy, while the famous exhortation *Haerent Animo*, issued on the occasion of his sacerdotal jubilee, remains a precious code of the virtuous life and pastoral activities of God’s ministers. Even as a young chaplain, Giuseppe Sarto had recognized the primary cause of apostasy from God in religious ignorance, and he had labored, through example and exhortation, to combat II. As Pope, with the encyclical *Acerbo nimis* of April 15, 1905, he issued wise laws for the catechetical instruction of children, youth, and adults; through his own example, he held Sunday catechism classes for the people of Rome; he ordered the promulgation of a single text of the catechism for the dioceses of Italy; and he encouraged gatherings for catechetical apostolate. "To live in grace, one must nourish the soul with the 'living bread' that comes down from heaven." Pius X is rightly called the Pope of the Eucharist because, through his decrees, he promoted the practice of frequent and daily Communion by the faithful (December 20, 1907, *Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodus*), facilitated the reception of Holy Communion by the sick (Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 7, 1906), offering them the comfort of being able to receive the Eucharist during the manifestation, and opened (August 28, 1910, *Quam singulari Christi amore*) the Eucharistic table to children who could distinguish the Eucharistic Bread from ordinary bread.
Within the framework of the Christian education of the faithful, the vast liturgical reform carried out by Pius X must be understood: the reform of the Breviary, the studies for the reform of the Missal, and for the liturgical books of the Eastern Church. In the *motu proprio* of November 22, 1903, new norms were given.
Pius X, Pope, Blessed — The first page of the autograph of Blessed Pius X on the Draft for the Reorganization of the Sacred Roman Congregations, Vatican City, Archive of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
The modernist heresy spread with alarming speed, infiltrating seminaries, cloisters, and the ranks of both the clergy and the laity. Described as "the synthesis of all heresies," "a path to atheism," and "an axe laid to the root of the faith," modernism threatened the purity of faith, the solidity of discipline, and the holiness of the Church. The response from the outset was severe, strong, decisive, and providential. The decree of the Holy Office *Lamentabili sane exitu* of July 3, 1907, which condemned 65 erroneous propositions (largely drawn from the works of Loisy), paved the way for the masterful encyclical *Pascendi Dominici gregis* (September 7, 1907). The papal document is divided into two parts: the first offers a thorough and lucid exposition of modernism, while the second presents a rigorous and devastating critique that exposes its falsity and denounces its pernicious consequences for faith, the Church, and the world. The encyclical met with violent and virulent resistance, and the struggle continued for years, bringing moments of anguish and tears to Pius X, who sometimes felt misunderstood and even mistreated, even in circles close to him. In this long ordeal, there were excesses by the overzealous and malice from hypocrites; not all who fought did so with detachment or temperance. Yet history has confirmed that "even in the most difficult, harsh, and grave moments of responsibility, Pius X demonstrated that enlightened prudence which never fails in the saints" (Pius XII).