The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-09-01
Tso ,ou Constitution of Missouri

The new Constitution Of Missouri |
IMPOSES an oath upon preachers of all |
denominations, and those who refuse |
20 take it are debarred from exercising |
apy of the public functions of their
sacred calling Some of the churches
are disposed to resist the authority OF
the Constitution. The following letter
from the Archbishop of st Louis, on
the subject, has Just been Published
sr Lou $, 2sth July, 1856. !
REyERFxD SIN: Since under the New
Constitution q certain oath 10 to be ex-
acted of Priests, that they may have
/ laave TO announce God word, snd OH
c;ste At marriages, which oath they can
in no wise take, without sacrifice Of
ecclesiastical liberty, have judged it
expedient 10 indicate to Sou my opin-
| ION in the matter, that you may have
before your eyes q rule to be followed
in a case of this delicacy ] hope that
1 the civil mower will abstain from exact
ing such an oath. But should it hap
men otherwise, l wish you to inform me
of the particular circumstances of your
position, that / may be able to give
YOU counsel and assistance.
Lam. Reverend SIR,
Isffsgg Your servant in the Lord,
1PETER RICHAKD,
Archbishop st, Louis
Commenting on this, the ST. Louis
| Democrat says. srt
The Archbishops letter is not 81
! clear to the public as it might have
haen made. It expresses dissstisfac
tom with the oath OF loyalty required
az preachers of all denominations, q
, we'll as of lawyers, teachers, corpora
| ton directors, &c, pronouncing 1t Of
;pterference with ecclesiastical liberty
That oath is required Of religious in
q strpotors. because the experience 0
: .ba late rebellion has shown tina
church influence, when directed /
/ reasonable ends, as it was in the seV
I arsl instances in Missouri, is one Of tn
most potent agencies which ,,disloyalt
can employ. But how that oath il
= voIvs ';sacrifce Of ecclesiastical libe
q tvn as the Archbishop charges, we col
/ not understand, for'it goes only TO th
question ofthe citizens loyalty to til
: Government, and in no wise affects th
: ! religious faith or practice Of any man
n But assuming that the cath does il
81 teTfere with the religious freedom
bischtrrch, the Archbishop proceeds |
ovpress the hope that the "civil POW
viii abstain from exacting such an oath
Rut" he proceeds, should it happt
otherwise, ] wish you to inform me
the particular circumstances Of 20
position, that msy be able to give y,
counsel and assistance" Now, the il
portaut inquiry is, what does the Arc
bishop mean in proposing TO give ''Oou
sel and assistance 10 priests CALI
upon to take the oath 2 Does he me
10 assert that the church shall be hs
|" 10 be superior to the State in civil &c
OF ears and that assistsnce shah be CIV
- 10 aid in resisting the law, or are We
understand the object 70 be 20 ma
and such transfer of priests as TO pli
loval men where the oath canu0t
avoided. We think it unfortunate Il
the Archbishop has not defined
meaning moss clearly, IS room for 4
- apprehepsion now exists, and Unjust
D may De done to bis intentions As
has placed himself before the public
N this matter, il iB phsinly his duty 70
. step further And clear up al gror
az for suspicion and mistake. We sno5
in common with ell good citizens, de
" regret to find the leading represeI
tive Of the Catholic Church ia MISS
engaged 10 counseling forcible Re
ance 20 the highest law Of the y
We hope he via not safer himsei
81 seem 70 occupy that position.