The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1873-02-09

81
Gus followers, even in this country; am
cnunciated principles and trptbs W4tsn
did hononr to him and which Eatnoi
heartily accepted. Not that Mr. Giadstone
went the whole length OF Cathonc NJ
trine-he stopped far short OF that M;
Gladstone was not o Catholic, but he iald
down truths and principles concerning re-
violation. and two of the doctrines OF reves- l
alton, and the guilt Of inward acts OF ion-
deity, which were immutabie, ana tnere-,
niue of every 100 Christians believed IN the
divinity and incarnation of Jesus Cnrns
and lie gloried in those truths, and csi'ed
upon his hearers TO glory in them anu 70
defend the 81. But it was worth WINE, salu
the Bishop, to ask one question, the answer
to which would be instructive. no Mnom
did he address these truthsi To an audience
comprising U nitarians and jews. was IL
to be supposed they would relish the excel
lent teaching Of these sacred truths
must be said, he thought, Mr. Giadstones
speech and his audience taken togetner
proved cepyincingly, that mixed educat'Oa
secondly, that mixed education In matters
Of religion 10 an in,possibility. He, the
Bishop, wondered how they relished the
excellent teaching. Aud he would ask his
hearers to note that tho proof was mere
given tIsem by tho impossie!liey Of ni1ea
Education in matters of religion. 70 For u
those cardinal doctrines--tho incarnation
and divinity Of Christ-were to be taught
there was NO help for it but to make educa-
ton strictly denOminational. In the Lioefai
party there existed phases Of thought which
extended far beyond anything shat Mr:
/ Gladstone held. The right wing Of that
party comprehended such representative
characters us Dean Stanley, Mr.J. Stewart
| Mill, Professor Strauss, and that great
| horde Of ration alists and unbeiievers who
professed attachment to the Liberal school:
| IL Was not possible that Catholics should
give themselves over to that school. They
Having distinct and solid basis OF their
own, they would never choose to walk
over o quagmre. The other great party
was the Conservative party. This was
thoroughly Protestant. The Protestant
religion was one of its watchwords. The
sure to rally all its followers. Whenever
il came into power, the Orangemen of Ire
} land eame into power also, and the ascend
ency Of Professionalism, as far as it could be
managed, took place with their advent.
Therefore they could not belong to that
party. To whom then did they belong Z
Could they work with either party His
truth, justice, aud fair piay-notikng more
: and nothing less. Sometimes they would
find the disposition to give that in one par
ty and sometimes in another. If they
found it in the Liberal camp, they would
90 into that camp. On the other hand, If
they found that e certain measure OF JUS
tice and fair play was being worked out in
because they sought, not party, but jus:
tice and truth. He said then they could
=, not belong exclusively, as Catholics, to the
lone party or the other. In matters of pure
reason, and in matters of political econo.
my, they might exercise their own discre
IL o. -s-lxAI ~lA rvsnyv~
ding to his own reason, whilst the reason
of another person might dictate to him
another course as the more prudent Blu
4 | when it came to matters of morality anC
= religion, then, he eaid, they could attacl
: themselves to neither party. They hat
C their own doctrines clearly laid down; ane
# if the Tories accepted it, well and good
if the Liberals accepted it we'll and good
o They would follow their own straight patti
: and would not deviate from it. Some O
II theH might think he was laying dow
rather q severe doctliHe when he said tina
they could not, as Catholics, consistent.
and persistently belong to either the Lib
n eral or Conservative party. But he woui'
- give them one illustration, and it should b.
% a crucial one, which would show with per
- feet clearness that the two political partie
: of this country had deserted the true ba
O. sis on which Christian politics must rest
- he meant-Christian revelation. AM
, Cnat, therefore, tney coulu not CIV
., in their adherence to either. Upol
y what did the happiness of families depend
a Upon what was the happiness of societ.
~ based 1t must be upon the sacred ties o
70 family life-the tie of husband and wife
W the marriage bond. That it was that he'll
y families together, that made home sacred
10 and that ledAo children being brought u
y in the fear and love of God, and even il
&c earthly happiness. Cut away that sacre
y bond, dissolve the marriage tie, draw from
IN IN it the blessing Of God, and in what wer
90 they laudedf IN what was called the CIV
" contract. These two great political par
~ ties of this country had adopted and pro
y. mulgated as law the civil contract in mar
W riage. They had abolished the Christia
!. sacrament Of matrimnny. They had de
"a clared as n matter of law that marriag
~ was dissouble, and the country had erect
'ir ed courts, and placed it's judges over thel
IN with authority to declare whether maj
w w riages contracted by the civil law shoul
~ be dissolved or not. Not only 30, it la
~ not contiled its jurisdiction to the maj
~; ~ rage contract before the civil registra
70, but even this contract in the Church
"S whether the the Anglican Church or I'll
~ Catholic Church of God, ne matter wit
Wv Wv what ceremonies or what authority