The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1871-07-02

Sometlmes the writer deals
sraats suuio%s us aonse; at other times l
of studied respect. Less freouentl,
when the editor knows he Is in the wron,
e., That the force of public opinion
against him, and is half obliged to adm
1t, he makes show of fairness, and admi,
as tetsefs 1n favor of the party or cause vii
.sa. uea. ne VIII even go 30 far as to plae
Shese letters in q conspicuous place, and i
large type, 80 as, If possible, to deceiv
even those whom he il slanderinp. Be-
oeiore long the hidden sting is thrust ou,
ana the cioven foot appears. It may b
tnet one or two Dumbers Of the papers ar
Peonsled before any further notice is take
or the letters thus hypocritically inserted
and then, when the tenor Of these letter
mas been forgotten, An article app ars fill
| ed with garbled extracts, and reiteratipp j,
| stronger terms the charges made agains
the cause advocated by the writer assaiIed
Sometimes again the Editor luses temper
ana Plunges at once IN nsedias res, printin,
nearly side by side the letter CONTAINING
the whole truth, and the editorial com.
ments containing very much the reverse
This latter condition ia the one we should
always desire to see fulfilled. As a rule
the Editor, by letting his angry passions
rise and yielding to their influence, com
mlts himself too grossly for recovery, and
shows too plainly that he has been hard
mt. And this he does by studiously igaor
lug the reasoning of his adversary, by re-
Peating Ills former assertions, and. John
buii-like, declaring that what lie had sand
al along was fact, and that the statement
OF his opponent is false. Thus last week.
IN ms biographical sketch of the late
Archb bishop OF Paris, lie asserted that Mon
se1gneur Darboy was an anti-Infallibilist.
ms was Immediately contradcted by a
letter from several French priests IiyinT in
or near London, which stated clearly. and
as any reasonable being would have imag.
1ncd, il manner which put it beyond con-
tradiction, that the Archbishop, when a
Professor of Theology in the Seminary of
Langres, had proved that lie was an Infal.
liollist by teaching to the students the very
doctrine which the Times declared he did
not hold. This letter was inserted. indeed.
out commented upon in most uilcracious
manner by the Editor, the gist OF his re-
marks oeing that Monseigneur Darboy
Commen sense showed the folly of such
mlsrepresentatlons, but, as common sense
IL plant OF somewhat rare growth, the
Archbishop of Westminster has INTERVIEWED
IN defence Of his martyred brother, HIS
letter we sabjoin:
Sr-With o reluctance / can bara,1 f,d
,a Mo,as 20 e3 press L am compelled to request
you to insert this letter in the Times newsnaner
4 nad thought that the noble and touchiny end
OF the Archbishop of Paris wonld have coyered
ms u. memory with the affections and syntpathies
OF the Christian world. Ishouid have bonrht
IL impossible that, while his wounds were Vet
warm, minds could have been found to contend
over the human conflicts in which he NAV haya
.Hse peen lnvo!Sea. But will limit myself to
tnFee points in your article of this morninp
ifst, tue statement made by certain French
clergy in their letter published by Won on Fri;
Gay last, that the late Archbishop Of Paris. az
PROFESSOR OF Theology in the Seminary of Ian
gres, taught the loctriue of the Infaiiibiiitv of
the Roman Pontiff, was not made bv them
ng sh him ime low and untimely purpose Of claim
S as ran,, as you say. rs an "lnfallibilist." 1t
was made TO clear his name, which ou pht now
20 De sacred, from the iu,putation of rendering
forced and reluctant submission to tho dein;,
ZION ZION OF the Vatican Council: arr able to CON
hrm their statement. Not long ago l had in
my hands copy of the thesis, preserved fv
bis students; and have intimate knowIed Gs
OF ms mind from the Archbishop himself.
ALchbishop of Paris to the definition of the In
falli6ility Of the Roman Pontiff did not toncb
the truth OF the doctrine, but the opportune-
ness or expediency of defining that truth
make this statement, not on hearsar hnt a.
personal conference with him in Rome Sec
onaly, you express yonr remorse that you have
i, n3t earlier called attention to the letters of
Qairinus' on Rome and the Council here
by give you the Judgment formed of those let
ters by Bishop Won Ketteler, of Mayepcs. in
whose Judgment the bishops of Germany, with
naioly any exception, concur. In u letter, puj,-
hchea last year, be says: "It will be necessary
one day to expose, in ali their nakedness and
SnleSt S. mendaeity, the articles OF the Aussburg
Gazette. They will present formidabl. and
lasting testimony to the extent of injustice of
which party men, who affect the sembIance of
superior sap education, have been guilty against
the Church" Again, in q letter to his diocese,
he athrms: "The Augsbarg Gasette hardly ever
prononnces my name without appeudinS to il
. falsehood. 1t would have been
easy for us to prove that every Roman letter
Of the 4agsbHrg GGsette contains gross pervsr
slons and untruths. Whoever Ia cunyersant
with the state of things here, and reads these
letters, cannot doubt an instant that tbess
errors are voluntary, and are part of con.
certed Syhtem designed to deceive the public.
u time fails me to correct publicly this unin
terrepted series of falsehoods, it is imt,ossihie
for me to keep silence when an attempt is
made with so much per6dy to misrepresent
ny own convictinnB." The testimony of the
blshop of Mayence l can confirm by INV own
evidence. The whole tissue OF the correspond
snce ID false. Even the truths it narrates arr,
tAisified The book entitled "Quirinus " is the
o6iiectton of these letters from the Auosbur0
udsefe. Ionr Quotation of this book forces
upon me the painful dnty of adding that some
"I the chief persons who either wrote or in
spifed those letters already under the ex-
communication of the Church, aud that others
VINO, writing ANONYMOUSLY, evade the open
responsibility of publicly declaring their opin-
9TH