The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-09 00:00:00

THE 211ORTARA PROTEST.

The Mortara Protest, bearing the signatures of
22 Archbishops and Bishops, 27 Dukes and Peers,
36 Members of Parliament, a long list of clergy,
and an unnumbered column of undistinguished
laymen, has been presented to the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs in open conference. As we have
already declared, this document simply expresses
the public opinion, not only of England, but of all
reasoning Europe, when it protests against the
avowed -practice of kidnapping children for the
purpose of changing their faith. It carries our
sympathies also with it when it proposes to inter-
fere to prevent this cruel persecution, and to put
an end to this outrage upon the family affections
of mankind. Looking only to the protest itself,
and disregarding the stilted nonsense with which
its presentation was accompanied, it is undoubtedly
a paper which deserves a respectful attention from
any English Minister. Lord John Russell fully
felt this; but he also felt that, however strong
might be the indignation of Lord John Russell,
the individual wrong offered but slender grounds
for the interference of the Foreign Secretary of
Great Britain. Lord John could say no more than
that it was a case in which all our feelings of what
was due to parents had been violated, but wherein
representations to the Papal Government would be
of no use whatever, and appeals to other Govern-
ments would be of uncertain effect.
This answer was sufficient for the immediate
purpose. Lord John Russell had the best of the
controversy with the deputation, but he has not
placed this matter upon its strongest ground before
Europe. Lord John must be well aware that,
grievous as this Mortara scandal may be, it is the
legitimate and necessary consequence of permitting
the existence in Europe of a mock Theocracy. The
European nations, Protestant as well as Catholic,
have concurred to make the head of a particular
Church the Sovereign of a particular State. The
Sovereign of Rome is the Archbishop of all Chris-
tendom. His first duty, his paramount office, is to
save souls. He is bound to believe, and all his
cardinals and clergy, who are also his ministers and
his judges, are bound to believe, that all unbelievers
in the dogmas of his Church will infallibly incur
eternal perdition. In their eyes, the only chance
for Sir Culling Eardley' s son or for the Jew Mor-
tara's son was to catch him and baptise him. These
people sincerely believe that Sir Culling Eardley
and old Mortara arc going the wrong way, just as
Sir Culling Eardley believes that the Pope is iden-
tical with " the mystery of iniquity." In baptising
the young Jew who was about to grow up an infidel
the nurse did what she considered a good, kind.
Christian act ; the priests did what they believed to
be a good act when they adopted the newly bap-
tised Jew and undertook to feed and teach him.
The Pope does what he considers a good act when
he protects the priests in the custody of the bap-
tised Hebrew boy, and refuses to deliver him up to
parents who, in his opinion, would destroy his soul.
He could not have done otherwise than protect
this act of easy' proselytism. He would have stul-
tified himself in the face of the'Catholic world; he
caused grief to allthe devout members of his Church ;
he would have incurred the contempt of all his suf-
fragans; he, even he the Pope, would have com-
mitted an awful crime, had he wilfully, under no
compulsion, and as a free agent, put this child out
of the Church and handed him forth to certain
damnation. How can we ask this ? How can Lord
John Russell tell the rulers of a Sovereign State
who honestly think thus, and by virtue of their
oaths and orders are bound thus to believe,—how
can Lord John Russell hope to make such persons
see that they are acting in disregard of the com-
mon rights of mankind and violating the prin-
ciples of natural justice ? It is not only the Pope
who thinks thus and acts thus. We should like
to interrogate all these archbishops and bishops,
and dukes and peers, and clergy and laity, as to
how many of them would protest against the de-
cision which deprived Shelley of the education of
his child upon the ground that in his custody it
would be brought up in principles tending to its
eternal peril. This English example varies in
degree, but it is the same in principle. The inter-
ference with the paternal rights of the infidel poet
was the act of an English Lord Chancellor, who
may be supposed to have wider views than those
of a small sectary, and who would be shocked
out of his reasoning by nothing bat a lapse from
Christianity itself. But let us suppose that, as in
early times, a Churchman were Chancellor, or let us
conceive that the Archbishop of Canterbury were,
by virtue of his office, chief Judge of Appeal in this
land, and that the Bishops were the Judges in Or-
dinary,—is it quite certain that we should not have
a series of decisions determining how far the sin of
schism can be committed without entailing peril of
eternal wrath ? And, when this had bean settled,
would there be no danger that the Ecclesiastical
Judges would feel it their duty to remove the chil-
dren of Dissenters from the evil teaching of their
parents pro salute (minim ? Or take the recent case
of Alicia Race. Is it quite certain that an ecclesi-
astical tribunal would have handed that child over
to be taught what they must have believed to be a
dangerous heresy ? Or would they have been justi-
fied in conscience in so doing? Oar Court of Queen's
Bench did this because it is a lay tribunal, and its
judges are sworn to administer the English law, and
not to obey the canons of this or of that Church.
But can any one say that the decision would have
been the same if the clergy hi Convocation or the
Kirk of Scotland acting in General Assembly had
been called upon to decide that controversy ? So
with every sect. Give it temporal power, and, to
be consistent, it must persecute. When it ceases to
attempt to proselytize it surrenders its belief in its
own professed faith, or betrays an uncharitable in-
difference to the perdition of the rest of mankind.
To abuse the Pope for retaining this Jew child is
more unreasonable than to abuse a spider for en-
tangling a fly, or a cat for seizing . upon a mouse.
Believing as the Pope is bound to believe, he must
thinkthatthecourse that has been pursued is a
.merciful course; having the power to protect, he is
compelled in conscience to protect ; it is his profes-
sion to believe, and his sovereign duty to enforce
that belief ; even the duty of persecution by fire
and sword only stops when the moral sense of the
age assumes a density of resistance equivalent to a
physical obstacle.
a child in order to.save his
souYtleis tnhoetki
the less
sa crime against civil society
because the kidnappers are actuated by defensible
motives. From the Pope's point of view, and from,
that of his whole Church, whose opinions he could'
not with impunity disregard—for even Popes have
been before now deposed—the whole affair is per-
fectly intelligible and perfectly defensible. But it
is no less a crime against nature and against all
human affections. The proper question, however,
is not why does the Pope do this? but, why has
the Pope the power to do this ? It is not the Pope
who does this great moral wrong, but they who
sustain him in power, knowing wat use his con-
science will compel him to make of that power.
You compel him to represent certain dogmas, and
you arm him with sovereign power—can you con-
sistently express surprise that he is found using his
power to enforce his dogmas ? In all other cases we
are careful to separate doctrinal speculation from
physical force. A clergyman is, before all things, a
man of peace. A judge is probably a man of strong
religious convictions, but he knows that he is ex-
pected to leave these at the door of his court, and to
direct the physical force which moves at his com-
mand upon mere mundane principles of men's tem-
poral rights, upon which all can agree, and not of
their internal interests, upon which so many will
differ. Here is the evil, and here is the remedy.
The Mortara case, and a thousand other cases which
vary only in complexion from the Mortara ease,
are the natural consequences of the temporal power
of the Pope. Take away that temporal power, and
the mere theoretical belief of what it would be
proper for a magistrate to do under given circum-
stances would be harmless. A little consideration
must, we are sure, convince many of the gentlemen
who have signed this protest that they have di-
rected their indignation against the effect when
they ought rather to have applied themselves to
remove the cause. If they had asked Lord John
Russell to use the influence of England towards
separating the temporal from the spiritual power
of the Pope, they would have proceeded logically to
the end they had in view. The present state of
Italy offers opportunities for effecting this object,
and its attainment would do more than any other
event to untie the complications of the Italian ques-
tions. Many devout Catholics would aid zealously,
for they see in the sovereignty of the States of the
Church a scandal to the Catholic faith. The Ultra-
montane cry would be sharp and loud, but it would
be short. At this moment it is quite upon the cards
that this unnatural union of Priest and King might
he divorced if all who wished so salutary an Euro-
pean reform knew their strength and would speak
oteThcui
remonstrance
ecclesiastics
mlma fsuut
siLtettisicuaws
use
noblemen
fookruotlihfcnioe
lrnosopi
intelatteigentlemenkFntal()o
o!ryee
the
practical
a
than
ps uea ent .
rpi. d
eosgi hseaoel ig
roeyosdl
oil; andl
English
iiNns'noecio
something
f
directing the diplomaaoti:elalcitiaoinuio(ifit,hies
dispense
to-
wards tip suppression of the temporal power of the
Pope. Let laymen
Central Italy and in the old capitalPofilstql,jeuesealcstarlsn,
and lot the Pope of Rome reignil in the consciences.
of all who form his Church. 'Then the people will
be no longer oppressed, and the I'ope will lie nO.