The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1871-12-03
Infallibility and Liberty.

| Va wow OTlcuuby 10 OuG LII IceucI AuS0uu0N
to be an extinguisher on the Infallibity
pretensions of the Church. The Presby-
terrain has patiently waited thus far in order
to give the old world a hearing first on this
momentous question. It has let all the
recalcitrant Bishope connected with the late
| Council make their most profound and cru
! dite arguments, it has waited for the great
masters in polemics to publish exha ustive
| volumes on the subject, and it has listened
patiently 10 all that Bismarck and other
great statesmen and philosophers had to
say, but being entirely dissatisfied with the
state of the controversy, it must needs
| como out oven at this late day and wind
the dogma up efectually and conclusively
in three-quarter column article.
It. says that the idea of an infallible
Church is " incompatible with civil or re-
ligious liberty"
Well, suppose it is; is that reason why
the Church is not infallibls. Would it not
be delightful thing to have all social and
political question settled so easily, cheaply
and satisfactorily as by an infallible tribu-
nal. Then there would be no more wars, no
more vexatious litigation, scarcely any
| taxation, no blunders Of Legislation, no
| woman's rights movement, no Carpet bag
gerry. All political and social vagaries and
heresies would be cut short at the begin
ming OF their career, and good men whq;try
to be patriots would not have to cudgel
their brains to distinguish the right on such
questions and then find out after twenty
years experience in the working of their
principle that they had been wrong all the
! time in their most honest convictions.
For instance, how much better it would
have been for those of us who took sides
with Henry Clay on the Tariff question and
have been forced by recent events to admit
that he was wrong, if an infallible arbiter
had, on the spot, settled the question in
| favor of John c. Calhoun! Unfortunately
the Presbyterian is wrong, however; this
tlnfallibllity does not exist in the Church, or
elsewhere, and we are obliged to srope
along amid the blunders of our civil liberty.
The Presbyterian speaks as though it would
prefer this liberty of cropping in the dark
to that fitness of certainty, that splendor
of light, which renders liberty unnecessary.
Satan has made the same mistake.
"But," says our neighbor, "your Church
does virtually claim infallibility on all these
points," Or in other words:
1t avails nothing to say that this ipfallibility
IL limited to matters of faith and morals, for
under these heads is included tho whole life of
man, moral domestic, social and political.
The Church merely represents it's founder,
med on earth. Does the Presbyterian doubt
His infallibilitJ in all questions of faith and
t morals. Does not the Presbyterian know
that He expressly claimed that prerogative,
and as expressly repudiated any intention
to control temporal affairs. "My kingdom
is not of this world" He said. "Giye unto
God what is Gods and unto Cesar what is
C@sar's." He was not willing, as head of
His Church, to interfere with the payment
of tribute to Cesar, while He did not hest
tate to decide on all questions of moral
law. Therefore He saw the distinction
which the Presbyterian cannot see. He saw
that the field of faith and morals did not
"include the whole life of man, moral,
domestic, social and political.
And, indeed, it would seem that any one
ought to be able to see the distinction.
do not involve any question of right. The
formation Of trade treaties with other ma
tons, tho annexation of an adjacent State
upon its 2wn application, the undertaking
of great national works of defence or i'm
provement, the fixing of terms for selling
public domain, the question, of fostering
home manufactures and, in fact all matters
of temporal interest to man iissefve CUES
tions of policy, questions of loss or gain,
of advantage or disadvantage, totally dis
tinct from any question of right and wrong.
In many cases, points of right and wrong
are invol we'd as we'll as those of mere poll
cy; in others there is no question whatever
but one of policy. But even when the two |
kinds of consideration are involved in the |
Same topic, they are still totally distinct.
A proposed plan may be justitiabe morally |
and yet found to he absurd in point of
policy and rice cersa.