The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1869-01-10
Prosslytizing at Public Expense.

| Gle with the above title from which, rs being
pertinent to matter of general interest
| although reference is made to local text books
we take the concluding portion:
Take the one department of modern history.
Evidently it has two sides to it, and must be
looked at from one other of two opposite
points of view. If children are taught the
| story on the Protestant side, and only on that
side, they must insensibly imbibe the idea that
| everything retrogressive, ignorant treacherous
and cruel has been mainly Catholic; and that
whatever has been done to enlighten mankind,
to establish q noble tolerance in religion and a
| rational liberty in Government is chiefly due to
the RefOrmers. Thus children taught are
taught to condemn their own forefathers, and
their ancient religion which brought forth such
evil fruit. 1sit reasonable that Catholic parents
should be expected to tolerate this?
We have before US, for example, a textbook,
| whose use is compulsory in all the schools of
of Massachusetts,, who is we believe q volum-
nous photographer. 1t purports to give a
popular history of Greece and Rome, of France,
England and the United States. Take a SAM
pie or two:
In the history of France, DIR. Worcester, you
may be sure, does not omit to make great out
cry over the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
which put an end to the liberation of Protest.
ant Worship. "By this barbarous act }" he says,
! " all the Reformed Churches were destroyed,
their ministers banished, and every individual
religion. They were hunted like wild beasts,
and great numbers were put to DEATH" 1t is
very true and very sad but when we turn Ito to
same date, he omits or forgets to tell us that in
the British dominions at that time, and for one
hundred years before, all Catholic worship was
forbidden by law, under severe penalties that
their priests were banished, that every indi-
yidual was outlawed, or compelled to renounce
his religion that they We're hunted like beasts,
and great numbers put to death, etc. Why does
he omit or forget thisi
lin his account Of Queen Mary's reign, the
Reverend Doctor dwelis with horror on the
Il r
mer, Ridley, and the rest. But when he comes
to the next reign, that of Elizabeth, the great
champion of Professionalism, he cannot indeed
get over revealing that she somewhat
harsh in her usage of those who did not agree
with her in religion; She did, he says, persecute
both Catholics and Puritans Why not say out
manfully, as in the other case, that she rackcd,
burned, hanged, emboweIed, great multitndes
of Catholics, and good number OF Protest
ants, of the sect called Brownsts," who were
exactly the " Congregationalists" OF the United
States. Why not tell that the Rev. Henry
Ward Beecher, if he had lived i'll England in
that day, would soon have been in ashes, and
his ashes scattered on all the windss The
learned Doctor does not seem to have learned,
in the course OF his reading, that during the
reign of Elizabeth, at least twice as many per-
sons suffered death for their religion in the
three Kingdoms as during the reign of Mary
and thatthey We're usually put to the crilelest
tortures. He never heard, for example, of IL
Catholic Archbishop of Cashel-because of his
being Archbishop of. Cashel, and for nothing
else had his legs Gxed in tin boots containing
oil; that the oil was then boiled, with the legs
in it, until the flesh parted from the bones; and
that the bishop was shortly afterwards hanged.
Nor that holy priests were sometimes nassa-
cred all in one battu, for being priests and per-
sisting in saying mass despite the Act of Uni
formity. IT lie did not know these things, he
ought to have read books before writing his
tory. If he did know them, he has dishonesty
suppressed them for an obvious purpose.
But he has not only suppressed the truth-he
has stated what is not the truth. For example,
in his eulogium on the government of Oliver
Cromwell he says distinctly that Cromwell
8. granted religious toleration" Now, he either
knew, or did not know, that during tue whole
time of Cromwelrs rule the Catholics We're
vigorously deprived of "toleration,7 and that if
they Nentured to celebrate their worship, it
was in very secret places, lest their throats
should be cut incoutinently.
t Still more impudent-if that be possiblc-is
the Doctors cool statement concerning tho
reign of King William the Third. He says
religious liberation was granted, OF course
lie means to eNclude-as- English law then eN-
thoics All the penal laws already in exist
ence against Catholic worship continued in
| force during the reign of King William, and
Were grevously aggravated by new enactmcnts.
| But the learned historian, we suppose, was not
aware of these things.
james H., says this queer hist orian, employ ed
bis reign in attempts to establish the Catholic
religion and despotc power. As how I He
endeavored to use his dispensing power to eX-
empt Catholics from penalties and disabilities:
he did not attempt to impose any penalties or
disabilities upon Protcstants, and did not
otherwise attempt to establish the Catholic
religion than by trying to place Catholics on
the same footing with Professionals 1t seems
lie committed seven bishops to the Tower be-
cause they refused TIC read 50 IL declaration sus-
pending the laws against Popery." Why should
| they not have been committed to the Tower 7
They had no legal right to refuse; still less a
moral right to resist Il measure of simple Justice
and humanity.
1t is in vain you will look in this compilation
for the highest hint that all the time, from
the glorious Revolution" until late in the
reign of the Third George, Catholics were eter-
priests transported in patches to Barbados
under penalty of death if they returned. More
over, in the Doctors accounts of the lament
| able nerind of infnlerance both in FRANCE and