The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1870-08-14
The Moral Law Attacked.

pounded DX certain Catholic theOlOgians.
There are some men who are born to
good luck, and the editor of the Presbyte-
ssan is one Of t}sesh, at least in this instance,
for had his article appeared one e two
numbers earlier, the gentleman thus at
tackled would have been at leisure, and in
situation otherwise, to annihilate him eff
fectually. AS it is, the subject is too pro-
found to be handled intelligently by lay
men, and the priesthood in this diocese is
TOO busily engaged in the legitimate labors
OF Its ministry to spare q member for edito-
rial occupation except in case of ill-health
or from other accidental cause. But where
professional clergymen make such egregi-
GUS blunders and show such gross ignorance
of the most common Christian doctrines as
in the article referred to, not only a layman,
but any boy who has studied his catechism
ought to be able to silence them.
The Presbyterian gives long list of
citations from Catholic theologians, which
it afterwards denounces as wicked in the
extreme-damnable errors. It says:
The immediate and constant effect of these
teachings! is to destroy respect for the legal
rights OF Others and to pervert conscience. 1t
that he can righteously become thief; he is
instructed how to conceal his theft he is en-
couraged and educated to become thief if it
suits his convenience; and he is taught that,
however criminal in the eyes of man, this viii
lainy is sanctioned by Christianity, and not
offensive to God.
In this statement are embraced two very
grave errors of fact. First, in the quota
tions given it is not " suggested to the
members of the Church." as stated. -Theo-
logies are not written for the members of
the Church, as the term is here used, but
for the clergy only. The laity are no more
authorized to read and apply these writings
than they are to interpret the Scriptures.
On the contrary, all the axioms and pre-
cepts found in these works must be eau
tiously and prudently applied by discreet
confessor, after thoroughly understanding
the case. The second error is in asserting
that the vice of theft is encouraged. On the
contrary, it is distinctly asserted in all the
citations given by the Presbyterian; in which
any wrong whatever is treated of, that the
offence is not mortal sin, which leaves it
by implication a GENIAL one. Does the
Presbyterian regard venial sins as some
thing permissible, and even to be- encour-
agedf If,so, ft ought not at least to at
tribute such a sentiment to the Catholic
Church or to Catholic theologians. These
always dwell with emphasis on the wicked
ness and danger Of venial sin, though they
are not willing to create false condolences
in their penitents by teaching that every
trihe is a mortal sin. We do not intend,
however, to enter into the controversy as
to distinction in the gravity of sin. We
have said enough to show the transparent
error of the Presbyterian in assuming that
nounced to be not mortal in it's malice.
Our neighbours moral theology is mnch
like that of the Scribes and Pharisees of
old, who prayed standing, with clasped
hands and upturned eyes, while they were
at the same time enjoying the property of
widows and orphans. They groaned in
spirit over the necessary work done on the
Sabbath day, but inwardly were full of all
iniquity and rapine. Calvinistic morality
on the question of theft is directed chiefly
against the poor and the oppressed. A
man may have been defaulter to any amount
in bank Office, or gone through bankruptcy
with full pocket, but if he keeps his
secret discreetly, while making a goodly
display of his ill-gotten wealth, his puritan
ism may still be of the most orthodox and his
piety the most rigid. If a defrauded servant,
or an escaping captive, or a starving man
takes enough from the oppressor to sustain
life or to redress the wrong, the pillars of
society are shaken and the fabric of the
laws is about to fall in, according to their
cutlery.
In the teachings of these theologians the
idea of legal obligation is entirely subverted.
A fancied moral claim is, secretly held to be
sufficient to dissolve the authority of law and
every private individual is authorized and en-
couraged by the keepers of his conscience to
treat the civil law, as well as the claims of
virtue, with contempt.
The secret comes out here; it is the
" authority of the law" the civil lap,"
about which our author is soswatchful, and
over the supposed subversion of which he
grows SO indignant. 1t is no longer the
moral law which he shows to be violated,
but the civil law. Now just here of course
Catholic theologians must take issue with
him and all other heretical teachers. Ca
tholics do not permit legislatures to define
their moral responsibilities or to impose
upon their consciences any new duty under
the obligation of sin. The laws of God
and of the Church alone have that sanction
Ia AAc.I,