The Catholic Church and Civil Liberty [pp. 232-239]

232 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CIVIL LIBERTY. [May,
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CIVIL LIBERTY.
WHEN Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury in the
reign of John, died, a controversy arose as to the appointment of
his successor.
The political power of the head of that see was so great at
that time that the designation of an incumbent was often made
as much for his statesmanship as his religious fitness. The king
claimed the right to appoint, or rather to control the appointment,
and accordingly ordered the bishops suffragan to elect John de
Grey, Bishop of Norwich. But the chapter of Christ Church,
Canterbury, disputed the king's authority and insisted that the
right of election resided in them, and they chose their sub-prior.
This conflict necessarily brought the matter before the pope,
who disregarded the action of both and nominated Stephen de
Langton, who was an Englishman of learning and piety, and, as
events proved, a statesman and patriot as well.
This action of the pope, brought about by an accident, was
attended with results which have extended to the present day,
been of inestimable benefit to the world, and firmly established
the doctrines and practices of civil liberty and the principles of
representative government.
Protestant writers, historians, public men, and the Protestant
world at large claim that these two things-civil liberty and the
principle of representation-are the outgrowth of the so-called
Reformation, and that Catholics are hostile to both. How correct this is the following brief historical summary will show.
There is no occasion to advert at any length to the character
of King John. How depraved he was in his tastes and base in
his pursuits, how little he cared for his people, for law, for the
constitution, is well known to all readers of history. Some of
the men who had ruled in England before him had sought to
define and observe their own powers, and respected the rights of
their subjects. But John did not; what happened was nothing
to him so long as he could be indulged in wringing money, by
any means, both from the people at large and individuals.
So far as any national council or body of men, charged with
the interests of the country, existed at all, they were not elected
by the people, but appointed by the king or were members by
virtue of their position as barons or prelates. They represented