Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1869-04-16
9Nisttllanp.
Marriage of Priests.

\ case has recently Deen before inc
Court of appeals at Naples, which shows
how completely Rome is losing its tradi-
tional power over the people, even in
Italy. Such nm appeal and such dem
onstration on the part ofthe people would
have been an impossiblty onlya few years
since \ priest on Treglia, of Salerno)
desires to marry; the local tribunal pro-
nounced that he could not, and forbade
the civil officers to take any steps in the
matter. He appealed, and the case was
carried to Naples, and argued by able
advocates.
The counsel for the priest took the
ground that the civil law regards men
only as citizens and without respect 10
their religious obligations. If n man
were not disqualified by some failure in
his civil condition, he could not be 80
merely bv the fact that he had taken
VOW OF cclibacy on admission TO sacred
orders He argued, also, that cclibacy is
in perfect contradiction To the nature OF
man, to the Divine word revealed III the
Scriptures, and to the example ot Christ,
who selected for his disciples and apostles
married men, except John and Paul ac-
cording to the testimony of st. Ambrose
and St Hilary. (Shouts of applause and
yivas) The idea Of celibacy had been
conceived to serve the uubridlcd ambition
of Stephens, the Gregorys, and the limo
cents and killing the soul, the hcart,an
the moral sentiment, it had well cores
ponded to their anticipations; so great
had been the perfidy and tyranny from
which, through these anointed OF the
Lord, humility has suffered and still
suffer. To make society moral the priests
must be made moral, and this can only
be accomplished by allowing their mar
riagc again loud yiyas ndapplause)
The advocate for the Romish party op
posed TO the priest said he stood there to
contend only for the law, and its very ST.
lencc on the subject was proof that the
old state of things was continued. The
practice of several centuries was opposed
to any change. As to the example OF
Christ and his apostles, he had nothing
to do with facts which occurred 1000
years ago. He was only concerned with
later practices sanctioned by the applica-
tons of Church and State. And lie
protested against any changes which
would do violence to the prejudces 0fthe
multitude what would they think of n
man who said mass in the presence OF his
wife and family He felt assured that
the Judge would reject SO monstrous an
appeal.
The Attorney General then followed
the advocate of the case in speech full
of eloquence, and distinguished by the
most liberal spirit. Like the Advocate
Catucci, he argued that the civil code
recognized all citizens as equal and now
that the grand principle of the separation
of Church and State was established they
could only regard the priest in his civil
relations. Let Roman Catholics make
their services as splendid as they liked,
they should have full protection of the
law, us should the members of all other
religious communions; but let them not
ATTEMPT to interfere with the State
Marriage was honorable and OF purely
civil obligations, but if to this persons
wished to add the priestly benediction they
were at liberty to do so, it was an affair
Of private conscience, interesting and
much TO be recommended. As to the
popular prejudice against the marriage of
priests, that would die away when the
people saw them respectable heads of
families. For himself he would infinitely
rather hold out his hand to a priest who
took his wife to his house than to one who
took his concubine.
The correspondent ofthe London Times
who gives an account Of the argument
says that the speech of the Attorney
General was followed by the most extra
ordinary demonstrations of applause.
.'Hats were lifted; vivas were shouted,
and universal clapping of hands ensued
such as have seen only in the enthusi-