New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-05
Semi.aoeeklu Grib,t,rs.
NETWORK, FRIDAY, JANUARY 8 1872.
PRIESTS and BISHOPS.

The Right Rev. Bishop OffariS VI tho H. W
diocese of Scranton, dissatisfied with the ad-
minjstration of the affairs OF tho Church Oh
tba Aununciation in Williamsport, served
upon the Rev. NJ. P. Stack, pastor of that con-
ereeation. a summary order of removal, and
forbade him, sub orGui chat is to say, under
penalty of grievous SIM, to exercise pilestiy
functions in Williamsport any longer. MIR.
Stack thereupon appealed to the Court OF
Common Pleas, complaining that he was NE
galIv depriyed of his revenue, rights,
and perouigites and obtained an injunc-
tion forbiddine the bishop to re-
move him or 20 execute the threat
of ecclesiastical punishment involved IN the
warning conveyed by his note. The case mas
been argued, and Judge Gamble OF the COM
mon Pleas of Lycomng County, Penn, has
sustained the injunction in an elaborate OPINION.
An appeal will be taken to higher court ana
a discussion of considerable interest and I'M
portance may then be looked for. III the views
of Judge Gamble should be sustained serlohs
change must be made in the relations whlch
have heretofore subsisted between the bishops
and the inferior clergy Of tho Roman CathOhc
Church in the United States.
The question involved III this case Is
simply whether bishop may, OF his ar
bitrary motion, and without formal accu-
sitiOn or trial, suspend, silence. or transfer
any priest of his diocese. Judge Gamble holds
that he may not, 1, because the canon law OF
the Church, which prescribes certain canoni-
cal procedure TO deprive q priest of his parish,
ia in force in the United States; and 2, because
the DEGREES Of the Plenary Council of Balti-
more. from which tho bishop assumes TO derive
his arbitrary power declare that when the reason
for removal arises from any cause of evil re-
port against the rector thus involving his
character or reputation, the bishop may not
remove him without judicial hearing 1t Is
hardly necessary to say that the Catholic Church
in the United States has not hitherto been
governed according to Judge CANDLES inter-
probation of the law. Bishops, priests, ana peo-
pie, as well as the authorities at Rome, have
cOncurred in regarding this rs missionary
church to which the canOns enforced elsewhere
DO not fully apply. The reasoning by which
the court seems to have reached the conclu-
SION that the ecclesiastical code sanctioned
Is universal in its application, does not strike
US as satisfactory, and indeed Judge Gamble
regrets that the matter was not more fully
discussed. If it had been, We believe he
would have learned that the canon law
according to Roman Catholic theologians, IS
always modified by tho established practice
of each different country, and has never been
in force in any part of the United States
except Louisiana, which adopted the eccle-
Aiastical law of France. The method Of
appointing pastors and organizing churches
distinctly indicates that the missionary char
acter still exists in the American church, aud
IT, is recognized Enthusiastically in the proceed
ncs of the two plenary councils of Baltimore.
These councils are the chief authority for
scttlinc tho discipline of the church III the
United States, and it is from the nth de-
rree of the latter of them Q8GG) that Judge
Gamble dcduces the second ruling of his de-
cision. He finds that although the council
recognizes the power of the bishops to make
removals at will, it also forbids them to re-
move priest without trial, provided the re-
moval he for crime (c0uSa c1fmjn0Iis). The
.ulons result would follow from this, if the
ruling were sound, that summary removal
would I've legal if there were no good cause
for il, and illegal if it were provoked by gross
maladministratiOn or moral delinquency. But
what is still more curious is that Judge
Gamble has quoted q decree which has no
existence. The 18th paragraph, or section. or
whatever the proper name OF it may be, OF the
Second PlcDary Council of Baltimore, is not
decree at oil. 1t is mere line of advice. 1t
suggests to the Bishops the propricty OF giving
an accused priest tho benefit OF trial before
removal and points out how cont for such
trials may be formed; but it makes no iule on
that or any other subject, and leaves the
Bishops free to act inst as they please. And
in another place tho irrcsponsibility of the
Bishops is recognized in tho clearcst manner.
II seems to he 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 see how il is TO he reformed by
Injunction, nor is ii easy 10 understand how
the Court of Common Pleas of LycOminG
Comfy, without auogating one of the pre-
rOgutivCs OF the papacy, cGn assume to
reverse the sentence by which Bishop
forbids one of his infcIor clergy to
perform certain clerical functions. Tho
prohibition is binding only upon the
conscience Of the Rev MIR. Stack; and
what has Judge Gamble TO do with thatR
As for the priest, he went into the Church
with his eyes wide open. and vowed obedi-
cnce 10 his bishop, and if his bishop uses him
miustly he knows that lis only appeal (from
IL Catholic point of view is 10 the higher
authorities of The Church, and not 10 the
civil courts. il may he hard that he should
submit to such rule, but he took tho obi
CATION upon himself, and should not complain
if it hurts him. OF course, if lie chooses TO
cut loose from what he regards as tyran-
meal church, he is at liberty to do so; but We
have little sympathy for men who will stay