Untitled

New Zealand Tablet, 1 July 1915, Page 34

Empire has no diplomatist at Home; but Austria, Prussia, and Bavaria have sent resourceful Ministers who rank very high in the diplomatic world. There is a pointed lesson in all this for the Powers concerned. They should show a little more respect For the Papacy in times of peace, if they expect their position to be properly understood and recognised in times of emergency and stress.

The London Spectator, in its desire to secure from the Pope a pronouncement on a particular side in the present issue, has endeavoured to call to its aid the doctrine of Papal Infallibility; but the attempt was so clearly shown to be untenable that it has been practically abandoned by the Spectator itself. The Spectator’s contention was that as the Pope is held to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra on questions of faith and morals, he might at least be called upon to pronounce judgment on the moral issues involved in certain specific acts committed by Germany. The contention was admirably met by the Rev. Stephen Eyre Jarvis, rector of St. Marie’s, Rugby, who in a letter to the London weekly gave the following concise and lucid explanation of the Catholic doctrine on the subject: ‘ It simply means that when the Bishop of Rome, who is the Visible Head on earth of the Church of Christ, teaches ex cathedra that is, in his official capacity as supreme pastor and doctor of the Church he teaches the whole Church that certain doctrines concerning faith or morals are contained in the deposit of faith received from Christ by the Church is infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, and therefore his teaching must be accepted by the whole Church as infallible. Now from this it will appear that the function of infallibility limits itself to teaching what are the doctrines concerning faith and morals contained in revelation. It has nothing to do with the question de facto whether anyone in his conduct has violated the moral law of Christianity. In order that the Holy Father may pass even a fallible judgment on the morality of the conduct of those responsible for the war he must be in possession of a full knowledge of the facts. And he must acquire this knowledge in the usual way, for it has nothing to do with his infallibility. And therefore, as he may not be in possession of all the facts, the Holy Father wisely contents himself with a general denunciation ol all acts of injustice on the part of the belligerents on whichever side committed, but taking no sides in the war.’ That, as it happens, is precisely what the Holy Father has done, and in perfectly unequivocal terms. In an Allocution delivered on January 22 of the present year, his Holiness said : ‘ If we have not been able to hasten the end of this dreadful scourge, we have at least been able to alleviate its deplorable consequences. We have done all in our power up till now, and we shall not fail to use our efforts in the future as long as it may be necessary. To do more to-day is not within the compass of our Apostolic charge. To proclaim that for no reason is it allowed to violate justice is assuredly a duty which belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff . . . and that we proclaim without waste of words, denouncing all injustice on whatever side it has been committed. But it would be neither proper nor useful to entangle the Pontifical authority in the disputes between the belligerents. It is abundantly clear to every thinking man that, in' this frightful conflict, the Holy See, whilst unceasingly watching it with the closest attention, must preserve the most absolute neutrality.’ It only remains to add that the Spectator recognised Father Jarvis’s statement as an able and telling presentment of the Catholic position, and the attempt to drag the 'doctrine of Infallibility into the question has now been frankly and sensibly abandoned.