Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MR. GLADSTONE’S PAMPHLET.

(From the London Times, November 7.) ABE CATHOLICS BOUND TO OBEY THE ORDERS OP THE POPE OR THE LAWS OP ENGLAND ? The echoes of Hr. Gladstone’s article upon Ritualism irf the Contemporary Review have scarcely died away, when he again appears on the field of current controversy in a pamphlet on “ The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on Civil Allegiance.” The pamphlet, indeed, arises out, of the article, and is perhaps an illustration of the perils a statesman incurs who indulges in pamphleteering. His words are apt to touch some feeling or interest besides that which he had immediately in view, and a demand arises for explanations and justifications. Valuable, indeed, as the present pamphlet may be in many respects, we cannot but contemplate with some alarm the mass of reading, if not of writing, which it may possibly entail upon its author. It is described on the title page as “ a political expostulation.” The expostulation is addressed to English Eoman Catholics, and it formally challenges them, in justice to themselves and their country, to demonstrate, if they can, how the obedience now required of them by the Pope can be reconciled with the integrity of • their allegiance. It is not likely that such a challenge from such a quarter will remain unanswered, and thus a new peril threatens Mr. Gladstone’s repose. But these considerations enhance rather than otherwise the interest of the pamphlet. It deals with A CONTROVERSY WHICH 13 AGITATING EUROPE, And Mr.- Gladstone’s interposition will be of importance far beyond the limits of this king,dom. The main scope of the pamphlet is to justify a single passage in the previous article. Referring to the question “ whether a handful of the clergy are or are not engaged in an utterly hopelessand visionary effort to Romanize the Church and people of England,” Hr. Gladstone had said ; “At no time since the bloody reign of Mary has such a scheme been possible.. But, if it had been possible in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, it would still be impossible in the nineteenth, when Rome has' substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem a policy of violence and change in faith; when she has refurbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused; when no one can become her convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another; and when she has equally repudiated modem thought and ancient history.” . The public will remember the burst of “ displeasure, indignation, even fury,” as Mr. Gladstone expresses it, with which these words were received by a large portion of the Irish press. All that Mr. Gladstone had done for the Irish Catholics was forgotten at once, and he was”den6unced as if he had been the wildest Orangeman. He says, too, that more than one friend of his “among those who have been led to join the Roman Catholic communion” have made the passage the subject of expostulation with him. He’ maintains, however, that his assertions were NOT AGGRESSIVE, BUT DEFENSIVE, And says that instead of the abettors of the Rope having a right to remonstrate with the world at large, it is the world at large which has the fullest right to remonstrate with the Pope and his followers. He says “ I, therefore, as one of the world at large, propose to expostulate in my turn. I shall strive to show to such of ray Roman Catholic fellow-subjects as may kindly give me S hearing that, after the singular steps which the authorities of their Church have in these last years thought fit to take, the people of this country, who fully believe in their loyalty, are

entitled, on purely civil grounds, to expect from them some declaration or manifestation of opinion in reply to that ecclesiastical party in their Church who have laid down in their name principles adverse to the purity and integrity of civil allegiance.” He proceeds accordingly to defend his statements, and he discusses them under the heads described in the following passage ; “ Undoubtedly my allegations are of great breadth. Such broad allegations require a broad and deep foundation. The first question which they raise is : Are they, as to the material part of them, true ? But even their truth might not suffice to show that their publication was opportune. The second question, then, which they raise is. Are they, for any practical purpose, material ? And there is yet a third, though a minor question, which arises out of the propositions in connection with their authorship : Were they suitable to set forth by the present writer He withdraws nothing, and does but alter a single word materially affecting his meaning. The proposition that Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem, a policy of < violence and change in faith, and that she has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history, he dismisses somewhat summarily as belonging to the theological domain. He briefly recalls the manner in which of late years the boast of uniformity of doctrine has been practically obliterated by a claim to a right of development. That the Papal decrees are at war ivith modem thought and ancient history he treats as an' accepted opinion, at least by a great majority of the British public, for whom he was writing, and the charge “ violence” he. applies to the arbitrary manner in which the new doctrines have been forced upofl the moderate section of the Roman Catholic community. Take the second proposition, again, “That Rome has refurbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she has fondly thought to have disused,” he also dismisses with comparative brevity, contenting himself with quoting A FEW PROPOSITIONS, ; All the holders of which have been condemned by the See of Rome, during his generation, referring, for his authority to the Encyclical and the Syllabus. The list, which is no doubt amply sufficient for his purpose, is as follows: 1. Those who maintain the liberty of the press. 2. Or the liberty of conscience and of worship. » 3. Or the liberty of speech. 4. Or who contend that Papal judgments and decrees may, without sin, be disobeyed or differed from, unless they treat of the rules of ( dogmata) faith or morals. 5. Or who assign to the State the power of defining the civil rights (jura) and province of the Church. 6. Or who hold that Roman Pontiffs and (Ecumenical Councils have transgressed the limits of their power and usurped the rights of Princes. 7. Or that the Church may not employ force. 8. Or that power, not inherent in the office of the episcopate, but granted to it by the civil authority, may be withdrawn from it at the discretion of that authority. 9. Or that the (immunitas) civil immunity of the Church and its ministers depends upon civil right, 10. Or that, in the conflict of laws, civil and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail. 11. Or that any method of instruction of youth solely secular may be approved. 12. Or that knowledge of things philosophical and civil may and should decline to be guided by divine and ecclesiastical authority. ■ 13. Or that marriage is not, in its essence, a sacrament. 14. Or that marriage, not sacramentally contracted, has a binding force. 15. Or that the abolition of the temporal power of,the Popedom would be highly advantageous to the Church. 16. Or that any other religion than the Roman religion may be established by a State. 17. Or that ini “countries called Catholic,” the free exercise of other religions may laudably be allowed. 18. Or that the Roman Pontiff ought to come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilisation. The main attack of the pamphlet is concentrated upon the third proposition, “ That no one can now become a convert to Rome without forfeiting his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another”—that other being the Pope. That all converts do this deliberately he is, indeed, far from asserting; but he maintains that they are inexorably committed to it. For this purpose he recalls some incidents of the controversy which preceded the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829. He observes that the strength of the ■ opposing party lay in allegation that it was impossible for the consistent Roman Catholic to pay to the Crown an entire allegiance. To answer this allegation, measures were taken to leam from the highest Roman Catholic authorities in this country the exact position of the members of that communion with respect to some of the more exorbitant Papal assumptions. Something more, he says, was necessary than the renunciation of such extravagances as the right of deposition and persecution; or of keeping no faith with heretics. MR. GLADSTONE’S CONCLUSION. “My own views and intentions in the future,” Mr. Gladstone characteristically says, “are of the smallest significance.” But “in the little that depends” on him he will still he guided by the rule of maintaining equal civil rights, irrespective of religious difference, and he concludes with the following words : “ Strong the state of the United Kingdom has always been in material strength, and its moral panoply is now, we may hope, pretty complete. It is not, then, for the dignity of the Crown and people of the United Kingdom to be diverted from a path which they have deliberately chosen, and • which does not rest with all the myrmidons of the Apostolic Chambers either openly to obstruct or secretly to undermine. It is rightfully to be expected, it is greatly to be desired, that the Roman Catholics of this country should do in the nineteenth century what their forefathers, of England, except a handful of emissaries, did in the sixteenth, when they were marshalled in resistance to the Armada, and in the seventeenth, when, in despite of the Papal Chair, they sat in the House of Lords under the oath of allegiance. FORMER INFALLIBILITY CLAIMS REPUDIATED BY CATHOLIC BISHOPS. He shows that not merely Bishop Doyle, but the collective body of the Vicars Apostolic, who then governed the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, utterly repudiated these claims, the latter, for instance, declaring “ That the Pope nor any other prelate nor ecclesiastical person of the Roman Catholic Church * * * has any right to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of civil government, *, * * nor to oppose in any manner the performance of the civil duties which are due to the King”— While the Irish Roman Cathglic hierarchy published an address containing the following article, which stands in strange contrast with the creed of their successors “ They declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither arc they thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.” Mr. Gladstone then observes that “Since that time all these propositions have been reversed. The Pope’s infallibility, when ho speaks ex cathid/ra on faith and morals, has been declared, with the assent of the bishops of the Roman Church, to he an article of faith, binding on the conscience of every Christian ; his claim to tho obedience of his spiritual subjects has been declared in like manner without any practical limit or reserve ; and his supremacy, without any reserve of civil rights, has been similarly affirmed to include everything which relates to the discipline a,ad government of the Church throughout the world. And these doctrines, we now know on the highest authority, it is of necessity for salvation to know.” SUBTERFUGES OF THE ULTRAMONTANES. He proceeds to expose, one by one, tho subterfuges by which Roman Catholic expositors endeavor to attenuate tho stringency of this claim, such, for instance, as that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra ; and

in the following fine passage he explodes the most frequent of these evasions : “ Will it be said, finally, that the infallibility touches only matter of faith and. morals ? Only matter of morals ? Will any of the Roman casuists kindly acquaint us what are the departments and functions of human life which do not and cannot fall within the domain of morals ? * * * No ! Such a distinction would be the unworthy device of a shallow policy, vainly used to hide the daring of that mid ambition which at Rome, not from the throne, but from behind the throne, prompts the movements of the Vatican. I dare not to ask if there be dregs or tatters of human life, such as can escape from the description and boundary of morals. I submit that duty is a power which rises with us in the morning, and goes to rest with us at night. It is co-ex-tensive with the , action of our intelligence. It is the shadow which cleaves to us, go where we will, and which only leaves us when we.leave the light of life. So then it is the supreme direction of us in respect to all duty which the Pontiff declares to belong to him, saci-o approhaute concilia ; and this declaration he makes, ' not as an otiose opinion of the schools, but canctis fidclibus credendam et lenendam." THE CLAIM TO ABSOLUTE AND ENTIRE OBEDIENCE. But he further insists that the Council has established something even wider in its reach than the claim to infallibility, and that is “the claim to an absolute and entire obedience.” This part of the decrees of the Council has not, Mr. Gladstone thinks, received due attention, and he expounds it with great energy:— “ Even, therefore, where the judgments of the Pope do not present the cx-edentials of infallibility, they are unappealable and irreversible, no person may pass judgment upon them, and all men, clerical and lay, dispersedly or in" the aggregate,'are bound truly to obey them ; and from this rule of Catholic truth no man can depart, save at the peril "of his salvation. Surely it is allowable to say that this third chapter on universal obedience is a formidable rival to the fourth chapter on infallibility. Indeed; to an observer from without, it seems to leave the dignity to the other, but to reserve the stringency and efficiency to itself. “The third chapter is the Merovingian Monarch ; the fourth is the Carolingian Mayor of the Palace. The third has an_ overawing splendor ; the fourth, au iron grip. Little does it matter to me whether my superior claims infallibility. This, it will be observed, he demands even in cases not covered by his infallibility; cases, therefore, in which he admits it to lie possible that he may be wrong, but finds it intolerable te be so. As he must be-obeyed in all his judgments, though not ex cathedra, it seems ,a pity he should not likewise give the comforting assurance that they are all certain to be right.” Lest this “ ostensible reduplication, this apparent surplusage,” should be undervalued, he observes that though the contrivers of the scheme must have known pretty well that “faith and morals” carried everything, or everything worth having, in the purely individual sphere, “they also knew just as well that,, even where the individual was subjugated, they might and would still have to deal with the State.” He thinks this is the very kernel of the matter. Individual servitude, however abject, will not satisfy the party now dominant in the Latin Church ; the State must also be a slave. This third chapter, he reiterates, boldly declares that “ Absolute obedience is due to the Pope, at the peril of salvation, not alone in faith, in morals, but in all things which concern the discipline and government of the Church.” SUMMING UP THE INDICTMENT. And he sums up his indictment on tiffs head in the following words : “ Thus are swept into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole systems of government, prevailing, though in different degrees, in every country of the world. Even in the United States, where the severance between Church and State is supposed to be complete, a long catalogue might be drawn of subjects belenging to the domain and competency of the State, but also undeniably affecting the government of the Church ; such as, by way of example, marriage, burial, education, prison discipline, blasphemy, poor relief, incorporation, mortmain, religious endowments, vows of celibacy and obedience. In Europe the circle is far wider, the points of contact and interlacing almost innumerable. But on all matters respecting which any Pope may think proper to declare that they concern either faith or morals, or the governmenticOr discipline of the Church, he claims," "with the approval of a Council undoubtedly (ecumenical in the Roman sense, the absolute obedience, at the peril of salvation, of every member of his communion.

MR. GLADSTONE WANTS A DISCLAIMER PROM ROME. He thus submits that his proposition is true, and that England is entitled to ask and to know in what way the obedience required by the Pope and the Council of the Vatican is to be reconciled with the liberty of civil allegiance. Under circumstances such as these he thinks it not too much to ask Roman Catholics that they should confirm the opinion which we, as fellow-countrymen, entertain of them, by “ sweeping away, in such manner and terms as they may think best, the presumptuous imputations which their ecclesiastical rulers at Rome, acting autocratically, appear to have brought upon their capacity to pay a solid and undivided allegiance, and to fulfill the engagement which their bishops, as political sponsors, promised and declared for them in 1825.” What he wants, he says, and that in the most specific form and the clearest terms, he takes to be one of two things—that is to say, either, 5 1. A demonstration, that neither in the name of faith nor in the name of morals, nor in the name of the government nor discipline of the Church, is the Pope of, Rome able, by virtue of the powers asserted for him by the Vatican decree, to make any claim upon those who adhere to his communion of such a nature as can impair the integrity of their civil allegiance; or else, , . 2. That if, when such claim is made, it will, even although resting on the definitions of the Vatican, be repelled and rejected, just as Bishop Doyle, when he was asked what the Roman Catholic Church would do if the Pope intermeddled with their religion, replied frankly, “ The consequences would be that we should oppose him by every means in our power, even by the exercise of our spiritual authority.” PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OP THE PAPAL CLAIMS. But the important question remains whether these propositions are not only true, but material—whethef, that is, they are of practical importance. On this point, Mr. Gladstone claims that it has been a favorite purpose oi his life “ not to conjure up, but to conjure down, public alarms.” But ho cannot believe that these mediieval claims have been disinterred “like hideous mummies ” in the interest of archamlogy, and without a definite' and practical aim. They must have been paraded before the world with a very clearly conceived and foregone purpose. What is that purpose ? It may be in part theological: , “ There have always been, and there still are, no small proportion of our race—and those by no means in all respects the worst—who are sorely open to the temptation, especially in times of religious disturbance, to discharging their spiritual responsibilities by power of attorney. As advertising houses find custom in proportion, not so much to the solidity of their resources as to the magniloquence of their promises and assurances, so theological boldness in the extension of such claims is sure to pay by widening ceitain circles of devoted adherents, however it may repel the mass of mankind.” “A DARING RAID ” UPON THB-CIVIL SPHERE. But all morbid spiritual appetites might have been amply satisfied by a claim to dominion over the unseen world. Why did the Roman Court lodge such formidable demands “for power of the vulgar kind in that sphere which is visible, and where hard knocks can undoubtedly be given as well as received?” It must be for some political object of a very tangible kind that the risks of so “ daring a a raid” upon the civil sphere had been deliberately run. “ A daring raid,” he reiterates, it is, for—- “ It is most evident that the very assertion of principles which establish an exemption

from allegiance, or which impair its complete; ness, goes in many other countries in Europe far more directly than with us, to the creation of political strife, and to dangers of the most material and tangible kind.' The struggle now proceeding in Germany at once occurs to the mind as a preliminary instance. lam not competent to give an opinion upon the particulars of that struggle. , The institutions of Germany, and the relative estimate of State power and individual freedom are materially different from ours. But I must say as much as this : Firstly, is it hot Prussia alone that is touched ; elsewhere, too, the bone lies ready, though the contention may be delayed. In other states, in Austria particularly, there are recent laws in force, raising much the same issues as the Falck laws have raised. But the Roman Court possesse® in perfection one art—the art of waiting ; and it is her wise maxim to fight but one enemy at a time. Secondly, if I have truly represented the claims promulgated from the Vatican, it is difficult to deny that those claims, and the power which has made them, are primarily responsible for the pains and perils, whatever they may be, of the present conflict between German and Roman enactments. And that which was once truly said of France, may now also be sard with no less truth of Germany—when Germany is disquieted, Europe cannot be at rest.” A RENEWED STRUGGLE FOR TEMPORAL POWER. Mr. Gladstone expresses a decided opinion that the real object of this policy is, to renew a struggle for the temporal power. He says : “I should feel less anxiety on this subject, had the Supreme Pontiff frankly recognised his altered position since the events of 1870 ; and in language as clear, if not as emphatic, as that in which he has prescribed modern civilisation, given to Europe the assurance that he would be no party to the re-establishment by blood and violence of the temporal power of the Church. It is easy to-conceive that his personal benevolence, no less than his feelings as an Italian, must have inclined him individually towards a course so humane, and I should add, if I might do it without presumption, so prudent. With what appeal’s to an English eye a lavish prodigality, successive Italian Governments have made over the ecclesiastical powers and privileges of the monarchy, not to the Church of the country for the revival of the ancient, popular, and self-governing elements of its Constitution, but to the Papal chair, for the establishment of ecclesiastical despotism and the suppression of the last : vestiges of independence. This course, so difficult for the foreigner to appreciate, or even to justify, has been met, not by reciprocal conciliation, but by a constant fire of denunciations and complaints. When the tone of these denunciations and complaints is compared with the language of the authorised and favored Papal organs in the Press, and of the Ultramontane party (now the sole legitimate party of the Batin Church) throughout Europe, it leads many to the painful and revolting conclusion that there is a fixed purpose among the secret inspirers of Roman policy to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of any favorable opportunity, the favorite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom, even if it can only be re-erected on the ashes of the city, and amidst the whitening bones of the people.” THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OP SUCH AN ATTEMPT. It is, he says, almost ridiculous to imagine that such a project could eventually succeed ; but it is difficult to over-estimate the effect which it might produce in generating and exasperating strife. It “might disturb and paralyze the action of such Governments as might interpose for no separate purpose of their own, but only ■with a view to the maintenance or restoration of the general peace,” and in reference to this point Mr. Gladstone turns once more to the Roman Catholics in England. He says : “ If the Court of Rome really entertains the scheme, it doubtless counts on the support in every country of an organised and devoted party, which, when it can command the scales of political power, will promote interference, and, when it is in a minority, will work for securing neutrality. As the peace of Europe may he in jeopardy, and as the duties even of England, as one, so to speak, of its constabulary authorities, might come to be in question, it would be most interesting to know the mental attitude of our Roman Catholic fellowcountrymen in England and - Ireland with reference to the subject, and it seems to be one on which we are entitled to solicit information.” bomb’s hold upon the highest classes.

Before dismissing the subject, Mr. Gladstone anticipates the inquiry whether these observations are meant as a recantation and a regret, and what they indicate as the policy of the future ? His answer is succinct and plain. “Of what the Liberal party has accomplished by word or deed in establishing the full civil equality of Roman Catholics, I regret nothing and I recant nothing. It is, he says, a political misfortune that during the last thirty years the Catholic Chinch should have acquired an extension of its’ hold upon the highest classes of this country. The conquests have been chiefly among women, “but the number of male converts, or captives (as I might prefer to call them), has not been inconsiderable. He observes, however, that such a movement in the higher class does not, as usual in this country, indicate any similar movement in the mass—- “ There is something at the least abnormal in such a partial growth, taking effect as it does among the wealthy and noble, while the people cannot be charmed by any incantation into the Roman camp. The original Gospel was supposed to be meant especially for the poor ; but the gospel of the nineteenth century from Rome courts another and less modest destination. If the Rope does not control more souls among us, he certainly controls more acres.” The severance of a certain number of lords of the soil from those who till it can be borne.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18750215.2.16

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4339, 15 February 1875, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
4,424

MR. GLADSTONE’S PAMPHLET. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4339, 15 February 1875, Page 3

MR. GLADSTONE’S PAMPHLET. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4339, 15 February 1875, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert