The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-02-08
ONE POINT STILL.

PIoUA. December 80, 1854.
Throughout your editorial career, have on
the whole been heartily with you. Recently,
your views relative to Know Nothingism and
Roman Catholicism at FIRST much disturbed me-
The former thought you misiudged, and con-
seguenty misrepresented; but, though l still
think that movement originated in pure motives
from a sincere belief that some such plan was
the only way to counteract the manifest designs
of the most insidious and intangible system of
despotism in the world, you have clearly made
out your case and fully justified all your aver
ments from their own acts and documents
Know Nothingism has plainly become a prime
engine of the Slave Power; and, for one, thank
you for the developments you have made. As
to the Roman Catholic question, your frank
yet courteous independence deserves unquali-
fed commentator. Would it were more gem
eral in editors
| Nevertheless, cannot but fear that, to leave
that system clear field to carry on its opera
| tons viii be found suicidal Though liberal)
policy; to be "let Alone" l. e., to have that op-
| portunity unmolested,) is all that the Romish
| Power rs well as the Slave Power wants and
asks. The main pillars of Romanism are the
doctrines not opnions) Of the Pope's infalibility
and supremacy. Take these away, and where
will it be? Why, reduced to the level of other
|
not and cannot and will not allow for the plain
reason that it would at once destroy the peculiar
characteristics of Roman Catholicism. Hence
the pertinacity with which they have Arrays
held on to those two doctrines; and hence their
never-varying declaration, that Catholicism
cannot change" e., in its principles and claims
| And / would ask whether those two essential
doctrines, of course In the sense themselves
understand them and not in the modified sense
a hberal-minded Protestant would fain put on
them, whether they do not prove Catholicity to
be Political System, rather than a Religious
Denomination? If we turn to history for the
answer, will not that reply in thunder tones
yes?
Granted, all you say about individual and
native Roman Catholics, land am both gratifed
and satisfied with the information you give on
this point,) still, it seems to me, these occupy
the same position which humane liberal slave
holders do; 1. E., exceptions to the rule. And if
| in dealing with Slaveism, we are necessarily
governed by what it is in itself, and not by it.
monstrosities, for these exceptions are its mon
strosities,) why pursue an opposite course ii
regard to Romanism? Moreover, those indiyid
ual and local instances, wherein leading prin
ciples of that system are disavowed, may exist
by dispensation, or readily be provided fol
at the confessional; or, if need require, by alb
solution from headquarters, as all history o
Romanism and their own authorities prove
In saying thus, by no means question The
sincerity of the parties referred to; in nov
disavowing political allegiance to Rome, the
are doubtless sincere, as American citizens
but should that power hereafter require politica
obedience from its members here, in yielding
that allegiance they would be equally sincere
as Roman Catholics. Suppose they refused, how
then-could they be good CdthoticsP The fac
seems to be, that, under certain circumstances
obnoxious claims of Romanism may be honest
ly and truly disowned by individual parties and
churches, and that disavowal be winked at by it.
leaders; but unless and until the Roman Cath
oIie Church itself, such, formally, explicitly
and authoritatirely, repudiate all claim to- polit
zeal authority, such disavowals must in reality
amount to rope of sand. On any convenient
occasion, the Roman power may, and will, asser
its right to that which it never relinquished
though from policy made dead letter for {
season; it not being bound by the unauthorized
acts of some of its members. say the Roman
power ,oiN enforce its claim, for it must do 81
to be consistent with Itself. To deal, thsn, will