New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-04-26

erty Of religion, or Of the press" And the
able supported his position, liberal and
Catholic in the noblest sense of that word
as it was, by excellent ecclesiastical author
ity as well as by arguments. The ultra
montana side of the question, in its turn,
was advocated by priest, who maintained
that penitent holding the opinions pro-
scribed by the eneyclicsl "mustbe treated
as a sick man, because he is not Of sound
mind, and can not be allowed to adhere to
his temerarious propositions. If he abstains
from following my advice, l will abstain
from giving him dissolution" The temper
Of the conference can be judged of by the
fact that this view OF the case was received
with laughter. The Archbishop asked the
priest whether he thought confessor had
the right of ordering his penitent to leave
a hundred thousand francs to the poor.
The priest rather evaded reply, but the
Archbishop added, " The temerity is the
confessor's, who wants to lay his hand on
temporal matters by taxing what he has no
right to lax
Finally the decision was pronounced, in
the shape of four propositions-and ii will
be well for those who watch the progress
made by liberal ideas in the Roman church,
to examine these carefully. The first pro-
position is that the confessor may require
his penitent to submit to d" the decisions Of
the church even though against his own
opinion. The decisions Of the church are
the doctrines of the church-for instance,
the doctrine of characterization; and il
a Catholic expressed his disbelief in that
dogma be would be refused absolution.
But is the encyclioal letter to be counted
among these decisions? The second pro-
position, which asserts the confessor's right
to insist on a condemnation Of the abso-
Lutte and unlimited liberty Of the press and
of religions" might to careless OBJ
server seem to sustain the encyclioal-
moments examination shows the con-
trary. None of us are in favor Of " the
absolute and unlimited liberty of the
press" since that would involve an unre-
stricted license of blasphemous, obscene,
and libellous productions; and none Of us
are willing to declare for unlimited liberty
Of religions, since that would involve the
liberation of MormoRism, thuggism,
widow-burning, and all the denominations
of modern free-loveism. The third pro-
position lays down the rule that it is
religious and social duty to re-
press evil and we all resog-
nize the truth of this in our laws
against profanity, labor on Sunday, and
anti-liquor enactments. But even here the
Paris conference puts in a saving clause TO
the effect that "if evil cannot be opposed
without grave Inconvenience ii must be
tolerated, but not favored The most
ardent advocate of "expedienoy'' could not
ask greater liberalism than this. The
fourth proposition is that the limits of this
repression and tolerance of evil depend
on concurrence of circumstances which
do not belong to theology and that the con-
fessOr must leave his penitent to judge of
them for himself If any Catholic has
beer. troubled in his conscience by the en-
cyclical, this last decision must remove all
apprehension from his mind. II, upon all
matters that he and other Catholics do not
regard as essential to salvation, he is to be
left "tO Judge for himself" he can smile at
the iervid exhortations of the Pope and
continue to read Radical newspapers and
to advocate freedom of religious thought
without fear of accommodation, or even
of a reprimand from his spiritual director.