The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1874-11-22
InfalUbIlity and Civil Loyalty.

late, and had to bethink him of some-
thing very sensational to bring back pub
lie attention to himself The plan be ad-
opted was not an original one, bat it lie
one that always succeeds in Eagland. It
was simply to get mp, on q new pitch, the
old "No Popery" cry. Mr.. Gladstone has
embodied that in q pamphlet, and as we
said, he must be happy now, for the Lon
I don Times pats him on the back fer good
boy. The London Telegraph has also said
| that the pamphlet has revived the aation' .
| confidence in him.
His pamphlet attacks the Catholic Church
and Catholic citizens. 1t contends that
mo one can become a convert 10 Rome
without renouncing his moral and mental
freedom and placing his civil loyalty and
duty at the mercy of another" This
charge be bases upon the dogma of In
fallibility and "wider claim which be pre-
tends to have discovered in the Vatican
decrees," namely that of absolute and
entire obedience"
Archbishop Manning's structures on this
pamphlet will be found, together with the
telegrsphic sketch of the pamphlet itself, in
our columns day. OF course they are
perfectly conclusive. The dogma of in
fallibility is nothing new. Every govern
ment of Europe, since there have been any
Christian governments there, has always
known that the Catholic Church claimed
and claims infallibility. Are we to stumble,
now in the nineteenth century, upon the
discovery of some occult danger in this
dogma L. it all of a sudden to upset
civil loyalty and reyolutionize States If
so, why did it not always have that ten
dencyf Has there been any change in
the dogmaf Does the Church pretend to
be any more infallible row than hereto
forei
Danger to civil loyalty. Why the
Church has always been the main stay of
loyalty in every government. The form of
government makes no difference to her
Casarism,- Monarchy, Republicanism-ail
can rely to certainty upon her fullest
and 6rmest support. In all Of them, abe
raises the natural obligation of subjects
and citizens into religious duty. She
teaches them that the powers that be are
ordained of God.
But perhaps the fact that infallibility is
now acknowledged to vest in the Pope makes
difference. If so, it remains to be shown.
Whether Pope or Council be infallible what
difference can it make on questions of
conscience and civil relations?
Mr.. Gladstone is an old statesman, how
ever, and he sees clearly the weakness o.
the pretense that Infallibility now ia in anv
thing more dangerous than heretofore. He
therefore discovers, what 10 one has ever
suspected before, that the Vatican Coan
ell has established wider claim than in
allibility-namely, a claim of absolute and
entire obedience" Unfortunately he gives
no proof of this grave charge SO far as We
have seen. Archbishop Manning unequivo-
cally denies 1t and ssys "the position of
Catholics in respect to civil allegiance since
the Council is precisely what it was be-
FORE" And, "The Vatican Council made
no decree in regard to the civil Powers nor
civil allegiance, this subject being never
even proposed"
The Times does not even follow the trail
of Gladstone on this discovery, but gets
obfascsted by the fact that the Pope, only,
can decide tue question, what 10 lawful ]"
But the church always claimed that right,
through Council or Pope; SO what
new harm The fact is that the argument
goes against Infallibility itself and not
against any pretended "wider claim"
The objection is a most stupid one. If
the Pope or the Church is infallible, he or it !
cannot decide amiss any question of what
is lawful. If he is not infallible, then wait |
until he decides wrong and that will be |
time enough to raise the rumpus. If he |
decides wrong Catholics themselves will |
see it and that will be the end of the Ca.ho-
ic Church. But why stir up uch tempest |
about what only may be. Why indict and |
Try man for a crime that he may never
commit Better wait for the event.
THE Carmen PpPEs