ALLEGED LIBEL ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF DUNEDIN.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 646, 14 July 1876, Page 3

ALLEGED LIBEL ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF DUNEDIN.

A telegram was published in our issue the other day, stating that Dr Moran, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, had laid a criminal information for libel againßt the proprietor of the Evening Star, and that after hearing the evidence for the prosecu tion the case was adjourned. The information is as follows :

" That the defendant wilfully caused to be printed and published in the Evening Star newspaper a false, scandalous, and malicious libel of and concerning the Roman Catholic clergy of Dunedin aforesaid, being office bearers, branches, or organisations of the Roman Catholic Church, under the control and supervision of the Most Reverend Patrick Moran, Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin aforesaid, in the words following—--1 The Tuapeka Times says it is reported that a rev father of the Roman Catholic Church has thrown off the trammels of the Churob, and followed the example of Pere Hyae nthe, of Parisian celebrity, by taking unto limßelt a wife. The fair one is repotted to possess considerable personal-charms, and at one

time is said to have been numbered with the Dunedin Sisters of Mercy, to the scandal of the religious body known as the Roman Catholic Church, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity, being an indictable offence," Mr H. Howorth appeared for defendant, nnd Mr "Macassay with Mr H. McKeay for the informant. After the case had been stated, and several Eoman Catholic witnesses called, who deposed to an impression produced upon their minds by the paragraph, Dr Moran was then called, who, as reported in the Daily Times, deposed as follows: I hold the office of Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, and arrived in Dunedin on the 18th February, 1871, but was appointed in 1860. I was previously Bishop in Grahamstown, Cape of Good Hope. During the whole of my life I have been connected with the Catholic Church, and have been a Bishop for twenty years. I read the local in the Star of July the 3rd, I observe a reference .in it to Pere Hyacinthe. I understand that this paragraph charges one of the Catholic clergymen of Dunedin with having broken his vow of celibacy, and thrown off his obligation of obedience to the Church and Bishop, and married a wife. Supposing that a priest had done what is stated, or insinuated here as being true, he would have incurred the penalty of suspension, excommunication, and deposition also. In the event of a nun marrying a priest, she would be subjected to excommunication, and, according to the law of the Church, to perpetual imprisonment and penance. 1 understand the allusion to Pere Hyacinthe to mean that he broke his vow of chastity, disobeyed the Church, and married a wife, When that occurrence took place it gave the most grievous scandal, and the most intense pain to all Catholics. Judging from what I know to have occurred already in this province, and from my knowledge of the effect produced by similar reports elsewhere Mr Howorth—You are going beyond your knowledge. The Witness—You have no right to make such an observation. It is open to you to disprove what I am saying. I am on my oath. In my opinion the effect of that paragraph will be most injurious to the character of the priests here. I do not think that the evil can ever be rectified fully. I have three clergymen in Dunedin, and I have been resident hereever sincemy arrival in this colony, with the exception of a short absence at Wellington. I am personally acquainted with all the priests who have ever been resident in Dunedin since I came here. They have always resided in my house. The three clergymen who resided with me at the time of the publication of the local in the Star had been staying with me since the beginning of the year. There is not the slightest foundation for saying that one of them has cast off the trammels of the Church, and taken a wife. There is no such Order here as the Sisters of Mercy, but there is one of the Order of Saint Dominic. There is not the flighteßfc truth in the suggestion that a nun his been married to a priest or anyone else. To Mr Howorth—l did not say anything to Mr Bell before laying the criminal information. It was his business to know that it was not true before publishing it. I have serious doubts as to whether he would have published a refutation of it, even if I did tell him that it was not true. I observe that the paragraph commences by stating that the Tuapehi Times gives currency to the report, I have given instructions for proceedings to be instituted against the Inapeha Times, but I have not yet sworn the information. I made no enquiries whatever a<3 to the circumstances under which the Evening Star published the paragraph. I take proceedings against Mr Bell because he is the proprietor of the paper. It has nothing to do with the case wliether Mr Bell was personally concerned in the publication or not. I did not know that he was personally concerned in it or otherwise. I have seen the same paragraph in other papers, but I have not as yet commenced proceedings against any of them. The paragraph also appeared in the New Zealand Tablet, which is the organ of the Roman Catholics of Dunedin. I saw the article which was published in the Tablet of July the 7th. His Worship— I do not think that I can load the depositions with anything which took place before the publication of the alleged libel. Mr Howorth —The Bishop has stated that the Tablet defends the views of the Catholics of Dunedin. In the article of which I am speaking this very paragraph is re published. His Worship—Do you mean to say that it is put in without any remark ! Mr Howorth— Other papers are copying the Tablet article. His Worship—That does not affect the alleged libel, published previously. The paragraph did not appear in the Tablet the same as in the Star. In reply to a further remark from Mr Howorth, witness said—You do not know what action I may take against the Tablet. [Laughter ] His Worship said that if Mr Howorth would keep in his mind what he had previously stated, it would save this discussion. Mr Howorth said that he wished when he would come to the defence, to put the article which appeared in the Tablet in as evidence. His Worship—As you have mentioned it now, I may as well say that I will not allow you to do so. Mr Howorth—l wish to show the way the Catholics treated the thing in their own organ. His Worship—No more remarks must be made on this point. We must keep some sort of order. Mr Howarth (to the. witness) —What is a vow of celibacy ? The Witness —A vow to abstain from matrimony and all sins against chastity. Mr Howarth—Marriage, then, is not unchastity 7 The Witness —I am astonished that you should ask me such a question in a Christian Court. I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Bench, but I never heard such a monstrous question. Mr Howarth—l <'o not see anything objecttionable in the question. The Witness—Then I pity you. Mr Howarth—Did priests marry in the early ageß of the Church ? The Witness—The present case refers to clergymen who have taken the vow of celibacy. If we go into the historical question we will never be done. Mr Howarth —I submit that it is a question that should be answered. I do not see why Bishop Moran should suppose himself above other witnesses. I ask his Lord • ship if he knows how long the vow of celibacy has prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church. The Witness—l have no difficulty in answering the question, but if you enter into it you will never be done. IE your Worship says that I am to answer the question I will do so, but not otherwise. His Worship—l say no. The Witness—l will not answer you, then. Mr Howarth—Then my client will not have justice, then. His Worship—lt is not usual to go into the defence in a preliminary examination. Counsel have no legal right t > be present at a preliminary enquiry. Mr Howorth—l understand your Worship to say that it is an unnecessary question. The Bishop says that he is quite able to answer

it. I asked how long since this rule or practice of celibacy has prevailed in the Church, His Worship—lt is not a fitting question—going into historical matter. Here it is sworn that there is an existing vow. Afterwards, imagining you may refer to it, the Court is supposed to have its own knowledge of history. You may then quote history. Bat at present it is taking up time unnecessarily. Mr Howorth—Then your Worship simply says that I am at liberty to state in argument what authorities I can on the matter without being allowed to ask the witnesses any questions 1 His Worship—You will be left in this difficulty always. Supposing the hierarchy of the Catholic Church had certain institutions 100 years ago or twenty years ago, the question is, have they one now? What the people did in the last generation, or the one preceding that, cannot have any bearing upon this subject. There is an existing institution sworn to, namely, a vow and obligation of chastity. Have I any right to listen to anything done in bygone days? Mr Howorth—l submit that your Worship has. His Worship—lf you bear in mind that I am not trying the case Mr Howorth—lf you are going to send the case to a higher Court I may as well sit down. His Worship—l am not saying that, but I must limit your enquiries. Mr Howorth to the witness—You do not consider, for a moment, that the paragraph applies to yourself ? The witness—l cannot say ;It applies to a clergyman in Dunedin, Mr Howorth— Supposing you were at Salt Lake City, and that a paragraph appeared stating that a Mormon had thrown off the trammels of Mormonism, which allows polygamy, and was living with one wife, would that affect you, or would you be concerned about it 1 The witness—Your supposition is beside the question, and without meaning, with all due respect. His Worship—l think Mormonism is contrary to the United States laws Mr Howorth—The Catholic body has no status in New Zealand. His Worship—The witness is not a Mormon. Sir Howorth—Nor am I a Roman Catholic. [To the witness.] You do not see any analogy in the case which I have put in regard to Mormonism ? The witness—l do not see its bearing. We are here seeking the protection of the law for our characters, and I do not see what Mormonism has to do with it. Mr Howorth —In consequence of your Worship's ruling, I am shut out from asking a great many questions which I wished to put to Bishop Moran. Mr Macassey—That is the case for the prosecution, Mr Howorth —After your Worship's ruling, I would like to consider whether I shall adduce evidence or not. It was then agreed that the case should be postponed until Saturday morning, at 10 o'clock, the defendant to enter into his own recognisance of £IOO for his appearance. Tbe Court then adjourned,