New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-03

governed according TO Judge OahlDic l"'oA
pretation of the law. Bishops, priests, ana peo-
plc. as well az the authorities at Rome, haVo
concurred in regarding this AZ missionary
church to which the canons enforced elsewhere
do not fully apply. The reasoning by "hich
the court seems to have reached the concur
sion that the ecclesiastical code sanctioned
is universal in its application, does not sIrihe
us as satisfactory, and indeed Judgo OaihDic
regrets that the matter was not more iuiy
discussed. If it had been, we DeiieVo ho
would have learned that the canon lazy
according to Roman Catholic the9logans' p! Is
always modified by the established practice
of each different country, and has never been
in force in any part OF tho United stare"
except Louisiana, which adopted the cccle-
siastical law of France. The method oil
Amounting pastors and organizing churches
distinctly indicates that the missionary char
acter still exists in the American church, and
it is recognized tnmistakably in the proceed
ings Of the two plcnary councils Of Baltimore.
These councils are the chief authority for
settling the discipline of the church in the
United States, and it is from the 77th de-
cree of the latter Of them dSCG) that Judge
Gamble Gcduccs the second ruling Of his de-
cison. He finds that although the council
recognizes tho power of the bishops to make
removals at viii, it also forbids them to re-
move priest without trial, provided the re-
mOval be for crimo (cauSa crimindtiS). Inc
curious result would follow from this, II the
ruling were sound, that q summary removal
would be legal if there were no good cause
for il, and illegal if it were provoked ny gross
maladministration or moral delinquency. But
what is still more curious is that Judge
Gamble has quoted a decree which has no
existence. The 18th paragraph, or section. or
whatever the proper name Of it may be, OF the
Second Plenary Council Of Baltimore, Is not
decree at all. 1t is a mere line of advice. 1t
suggests to the Bishops the propIiety OF giving
an accused priest the benefit of a trial before
removal and points ont how court for such
trials may be formed; but it makes no lule on
that or any other subject, and leaves the
Bishops free to act just az they please. And
in another place the responsibility of the
Bishops is recognized in the clcarc5t manner.
1t seems to be generally agreed that the
present condition of tho Roman Catholic
Church in the United States is anomalous in
this regard and ought not to continue; but
we do not SEQ how it is to be reformed by
injunction, nor is it easy to understand how
tho Court of Common Pleas Of Lycoming
County, without arrogating one OF the pre-
negatives of the papacy, can assume to
reverse the sentence by which Bishop
forbds one of his inferior clergy to
perform certain clerical functions The
prohibition is binding only upon the
conscience of the Rev. Mr.. Stack and
what has Judge Gamble to do with thatf
As for the priest, lie went into the Church
with his eyes wide oror. and vowed obedi-
ence to his bishop, and Il his bishop uses lin
unjustly he knows that his only appeal (ifom
o Catholic point OF vicw) Is to the higher
authorities of the Church, and not to the
civil courts. It may be hard that he should
submit to such rule, but he took the obi
CATION upon himself, and should, not complain
if it hurts him. OF course, if he chooses to
cut loose from what he regards as a tyran-
meal church, he is at liberty to do so; but we
have little sympathy for men who will stay
in society and refuse to obey its rules.