The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-12-01
As to the Belief Of People.

euyI IN lnls 5tate, ana Archbishop FUR
CELL, at Cincinnati, in the year 1886, tho
question Of Papal iniallibllity was discuss.
ed at considerable length, directly and in.
directly, and on page 1870 Of that debate
the Archbishop complained, apparently,
that his opponent pressed the question un.
fairly. Hc, therefore, took occasion to
remark that he had repeatedly told
Mr.. @. that "lhe Catholic Church
has never taught that the Pope's
inlGlliblllty was an article Of faith" This
was O. true declaration at that time. The
Archbishop was literally correct. And no
doubt had any priest in his diocese held
that the Pope was not inialllble he would
not have been esteemed hereto. But
how would it bo TO day2 We ask this
question in view Of yesterdays dispatches
from London, which inform US that Arch.
bishop MANNING has just issued pasto-
rial letter setting forth that all who deny
the dogmas OF the Immaculate Conception
and of Papal infallibility cease to be
Catholics, and II they go 10 confession
and communion, couceallug their unbeliei,
they commit sacrilege to the greater
condemnation OF their souls."
Such letter as this, coming from such
distinguished source, cannot fail to be
a cause otmcntal ditqietule to many indi.
vilusls both in this country and England
1t is the fret prominent and pronounced
utterance OF the kind that we have seen.
1t will no doubt cause some persons TO ex.
anime their minds and aee what they
really do believe on the subjects
named. And no doubt 1t will find
not few parties unprepared to decide.
Unfortunately the belief OF an indivldus !
Is not always something that he can con.
troll. There are certain facts, for instance,
that admit Of no Volition as to their men
tai admission and adoption. No man can
dlsbelieVe the axiOms Of geometry. He
must admit them. He never thinks OF
discussing them, so palplblc and indis.
putable is their truth. But not 80 Is 1t with
the great mSjonTy Of abstract questions
that come before US. These wo are
forced to reason upon, at greater or less
length, in order 10 come 10 q con-
clusioD. Reason is the brightest jewel
with which the Creator has endowed his
creatures. The Almighty will not hold
him guiltless who ignores his reason.
Suppose then that man like DoLLINGER
denies the dogma Of iniallibllity, which
denial was allowable few years ago, and
cannot get the consent oi his reason to be-
lieve in It now, is he 10 be delivered over
perdition II be is, this Is certainly
frightIul world 10 live in, and those only
are safe who are irresponsible.
II we understand the scope OF Arch.
bishop MANNING's letter it is this: A
man must believe in inIallibility whether
it conforms to his reason or not. II rea'
son assists him 10 believe, all the better;
but If not, but, on the contrary, leads him
to disbelieve, then to reason. is sin, and
may become mortal sin. What Is q sin
now would not have been a sin during
the PURCELL 'CAMPRELL debate. What
is not q sin to day may become one few
years hence. A mans reason may become
his destruction next year as respects
belief that is now perfectly allowable.
We have read somewhere that there
has been held Tor ages certain doc
trine called tho doctrine oil devel-
opment," according TO which such
dogmss as intallibllity have always
been In existence in the shape Of
"things new and old" at one and the
same tIme-new in definition but old in
having always lain underlined in the whole
mass Of the faith once delivered to the
Saints. This explains why, we presume,
that'a person may hold the same belief
innocently al one time and sinfully at q
subsequent period. The only trouble we
see In 1t Is that the same reason that
bripgsa man to an allowable belief to day
may hold him to 1t even though it should
become unbelievable TO morrow.