The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-12-20 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MORALITY IN THEORY AND
PRACTICE.

TO ME EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STrINDARD.

Sr it,—The following circumstance occurred very recently in
this town. An Irish Roman Catholic servant acknowledged to
her mistress that she had at times, when she refused her more
than her usual, and as was thought sufficient, allowance of
sugar, gone and secretly taken it from the bowl. And she said
this was no sin, because she did not give it out of the house.
If this offence were an individual act, unconnected with the
doctrines taught by the church of which she is a member, the
odium and guilt would rest with the individual so offending
but, that it is only the natural fruit of the precepts of the
Church of Rome, let the following extracts prove.
Ei,ract from Bailly's Treatise on Moral Theology, part or the
the course of* study in the Roman Catholic College fir the Educa-
of Priests, itlaynooth, Ireland :
" Qsestion.—What is to be thought of servants who pilfer
(surrepientibus ) any thing from their masters?
" Answers.--That they sin mortally it they pilfer a consider-
able quantity; venially it a small quantity. But, if they steal
money, furniture, or such things, the same quantity is required
to constitute a mortal sin as if they were strangers; nay, rather,
their crime is more detestable, as well because they violate the
trust reposed in them by their masters, as because their masters
are oftener more displeased than if a stranger stole from them.
But if servants should pilfer (suiripuennt) any thing to eat,
they do not always sin; that is to say, if it be some food which
their masters would readily, permit them to use if leave were
asked from them; or, at least, they sin more venially, and a
greater quantity is required to make a mortal sin than with
respect to strangers, because it would be generally less con-
trary to the wishes of a master. They sin mortally, however,
if they pilfer for the purpose of carousing, or in order to sell, or
give away to others, or if they should make use of dainties and
choice wines, which the master wishes to reserve for himself,
and which are not usually allowed to servauts."—Bailly's
Theology( vol. 2, p. 239-240.
That pilfering small quantities, in this extract, does not refer
to the understood liberty of servants to eat a sufficient quantity
of the articles given for their use is evident from the passage
itself, because the answer sets out by saying, that " to pilfer
small quantities is a venial sin," and even in respect to small
quantities pilfered fur eating, it acknowledges it may be " a
more venial sin." But to eat what is allowed by the master is
no sin at all. And, therefore, liberty is here given actually to
steal, and yet the Church of Rome teaches her priests and the
priests teach the people that it is no sin, or at least a more
venial one. Suppose it to be a venial sin, let us see the barrier
opposed to its committal by the Church of Rome, by consider-
ing the doctrines taught respecting venial sins in another part
of the course on theology, viz.:—Dogmatic Theology, vol. 5,
p. 56, where we learn that venial sins do not separate from the
grace of God; that they may be concealed from the priest
without incurring blame, and may be expiated in many ways:
How trifling a matter they make venial sins! What a strong
safeguard for a master's property !
Thus it is easy to perceive whence sprung the servants
doctrine and practice. How opposed is this theology to the holy
doctrines and precepts of the word of God ! We there, learn
concerning sin, " The soul that sinneth it shall die." Ezekiel,
c. 18, v. 4. No mention is here made of the amount of sin, but
only of the fact. And again, " WhosoeVer shall keep the
whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
James, c. 2, v. 10. Such is the doctrine of the Bible respecting
sin; and its moral precepts are equally pure and tending to
holiness. Of servants it says, " Not purloining, but showing
all good fidelity." Titus, c. 2. v. 10. How have they, in this
case, made the commandment of God of none effect by their
traditions!

I would propose to the masters and mistresses of Liverpool to
demand a recantation of this doctrine from each Roman
Catholic servant before hiring him or her.—! remain, &c.,
Liverpool, Dec. 14, 1836. H. W.

A POPULAR COURSE OF CHEMISTRY.
MECHANICS' INSTITUTION.