The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-25

- ~ ~ - - -
as Chaplain OF the Workhouse. Father 0'Keeffe
then commenced an action for libel against Cardi-
nai cullen. alleging thar the sentence Of suspen-
SION damaged him In the loss OF lucrative once.
me plalntin was now beseeched IN the most
solemn manner to retrace bis Steps ana return 70
a sus 10 k 5s 5 %Ss v n
violent aud Coarse language. did all In his power
70 stir up antag0nsms against the discipline OF the
Kingdoms. and his champions in both houses Of
Parliament and In the press were continually worry
ing Mr. Gladstone about his removal by the Board OF
RELIC OF THE PENAL LAWS.
The libel case was several times before the Court
OF Queens Bench. and on the TIN instant It came
consisting OF the Lord Chief Justice Whiteside and
Justices n, oss n and Tas
an old statute passed in the reign OF Queen Eliza
BETH still in force "a relic Of the penal laws which
ton Of any rescript or bui OF the Pope into Ire
land, and declaring the same null and void. Other
Mss ssed " moe tna
the Roman Catholic Church, being voluntary
Church any jurisdiction which II possesses is
sentence OF It's courts who has not expressly or by
implication agreed to be so bound. 1t was also
quite ss dc
tended that when civil rights are invaded civil
courts will not only inquire whether in point OF
fact sentence has been pronounced by an ecclesi-
astical court Of voluntary Church, but also
whether such sentence is In accordance with the
tss rule against wnca pant rsu had as
tas power under w, whi; en- the ATc m. hop
been done. under such mandate Of . foreign seve-
reign, was rendered illegal by the statute OF Eliza
fore, against Father O'Keefie being thus wholly
void, 1t was urged the Cardinals notification OF
n W nlaintiH nOatti0n hpatdpq
causing him other damage.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION.
To all this Archbishop Cullen replied that although
the Roman Catholic Church is voluntary Church
and the duty Of obedience to its rules Is derived
n Courts Are q
binding by contract upon the members OF given
church, that the rule against suing eccesastics in
the fact that he Cardinal Cullen acted in the mat
ter under direction OF the Pope did not vtiate the
ong against All int the PORES with
the dignities and revenues or the Established
Church, that his Holiness on the present occasion
thai Of his delegate all parties had TO be bound;
and lastly that the archbsh0p's notification OF SEN
munIcation which he was in duty bound to make
to the person to whom he made 1t. 1t was also
asserted that four lfhs Of the time Of Protestant
bishops was consumed in smoothing over diificu-
ties between their clergy.
THE CARDINALS COURSE SUSTAINED.
The Court decided in favor OF Cardinal Cullen
but were divided on the point Of the legality OF the
Pope's rescrpt the Lord Justice OBrien holding
that the statute OF Elizabeth had been repealed by
ing Judgment, said that the status OF the Roman
Catholic Church In Ireland was the same as that
lished, and other voluntary associations, the men,
bers OF which subscribe or assent TO certain rules,
ana snS conform suc to
tracts resting upon mutual consent and
enforced as matters OF contract by the tribunals of
the land The plaintiff had contracted to abide by
the laws OF the Church, and he had not done so.
The Cardinal had merely carried out the laws
# s 6egsa be By BY Sa
Justice Barry dissented from the doctrine that
even II the sentence was In any way illegal or in
taihed He quoted authorities to show that such
agreements existed In England Ireland and Scot
ana a ns mao se n DS
The plea OF privilege was good. Father O'Keere
himself had by his own acts and conduct created
action for libel to question the existence of priv
ilege which he himself had created. The Baron
not eentrary to bubble policy or the liberty Of
subject. 1t was clear to his mind that an action
for defamation was wholly untenable. The Lord
ends one branch OF Father O'Keefe's case, but he
still remains officiating as priest in the parish
church and as a sweet bone OF contention IN the
House OF Commons
The so-caIled Prophecy OF st. Malachy
q Forgery-Arnold Wion the Author of
for Fear.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
The publication in the HERALD OF the socalled
prophecy OF ST. Malachy about the Roman pontifrs
has given that literary fraud an appearance Of
authenticity to which 1t is by no means entitled.
That remarkable document is believed by the most
learned critics to be nothing more than
CLEVER ELECTI0NEERING BROCHURE,
first published during the Concave OF 1890 for the
election of successor to Urban WILL, by the ad-
herents OF Cardinal Simoncelli, who is designated
te .%e with Which the Popes rom
Caestine IL. in l143 to Gregory XIV: in 1890, when
the predictions were published, are foretold.
st. Bernard, st. Malachys most intimate friend
and biographer, makes no mention of the Papal
prophecy; nor Is IL found, or even the slightest
a wGIx The
works OF st. Malachy were edited and published by
his friend st. Bernard and II he were the author
could have escaped the knowledge OF st. Bernard,
especially as he published predictions Of the Saint
OF much smaller Importance.
The historical errors In the prophecy strip 1t OF
Its claim to the supernatural In 1t eight
Victor w.. Pascha III. Csllistus Ill.,. Nicholas v.
Clement W.. Benedict Kill, Clement VIII. and
Felix v. are named among the legitimate success
IT, the tue
affixed to their names. Its chronology is
also at fault The ,,,I anttPSRes.victor W.
before Alexander I'LL, who preceded them,
while Clement VII, Benedict XIII. and Clement
VIII. are placed before instead OF after Urban vi.
1t is doubt an ably concocted imposition and the
coincidence in most appropriately styling Plus vi.
peregrtnus dpostoticus very remarkable; but the
silence Of st. Bernard ana all writers up to the
time OF Arnold Wion about the existence of any
such document the historical and chronological
mentioned and the rumor at the time OF pub
licati0n that 1t was nothing more than
wELL-PLANNED EFFORT
OF It's author to further the interests Of his patron
Cardinal Simoncel deprives 1t OF every title to be-
lief. On these very grounds 1t has been generally
rejected by the ablest historians. Baronius, Spon
danus BzOvius, Raynaldus scarcely deem it worthy
OF notice, while Moreri exposes the fraud and De
Monitor says "no reasonable man. whether OF the
Catholic reformed religion puts any faith IN tn
and Count Msroni, IN his Ecclesiastical Dictlon-
ary," does not hesitate to say that no one but o
fool (st,lltO would pay any attention to it.
The over-credulous who delight in the supposi-
tious prophecy 81 the Irish Saint, need not fear