The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1875-08-08
The euibord Case in Montreal.
In. Y. TAblet.l

IL. y. Tablet n
The Privy Council of England seems to q
have allowed itself to be swayed in very
impol tant case, connected with the govern
meDt of Canada, by it's antipathies rather T
than by justice. The treaty made with i,
France on the cession Of Canada to Great q
Britain guaranteed to the Catholic Church b
lts perfect integrity and freedom in its +
government, according to its accepted .
laws and usages. One of these well-estab- a
lished laws concerns the right of burial In I
consecrated ground. Whilst every Catho- :
lie ia bound to seek burial in ground that .
is blessed or consecrated, the Church has
always held as q most severe penalty the ,
| refusal of this privilege, which is very i'm
| porraut, because implying the right to the
| suffsages offered by tue Church, for all the
| souls of the faithful departed in commu
| uion with her. Public sinners aud notori
ously accommodated persons are denied
| this burial in consecrated ground, or, as IL
came to be generally termed, Christian
burial. The cemeteries were under the
absolute control Of the Church, and SUBJECT
to the same laws that controlled Church
property. Burial was considered spirita-
al privilege, so much so that all above |
puberty who though owning property.
oftentimes had not the right TO dispose OF
it without the consent of their parents, ye1
had the right TO determine the place of their
, burial without their consent. Wives, TOO,
l had the right of choosing their burial place
y. without the consent of the husband. For
), " the parental or marital authority could
q not interfere with spiritual privilege"
g The Church always laid aside 10 the
cemetery place where unbaptized persons
and all persons dying out of the commu
Mon of the Church might be barred. Or
q course the purchase of any plot sold in the
a cemetery by any individual, or for the IN
terment of any family, is subject to the
70 well recognized laws of the Church.
% certain J. Guibord, printer OF Mon
of treal, had incurred excommunlcatlon oy
ty becoming member of the Canadian lnstl
. tute, that was VIGOROUSLY in antagonism
a with episcopal authority and died with,
~ out signs of repentance. His widow appiled
to to have him buried in the family plot,
at which was refused, though the offer was
10. made to bury him in the part of the GENE
IF terry reserved for those dying out of the
nd communion of the Church. Had there been
vo any excessive severity in the condemnatioi
mr. of tie Canadian Institute, the proper ap
lief peal should have been to the Archolshof
ast of the Ecclesiastical Province and from
,.ct him to the Pope. 1t was an ecclesiastlca
% matter coming under the sole contro
ID. of the Church. But the members OF th'
his Canadian Institute wished to appeal e
ta,t | the civil courts, and persuaded IN
I'D widow to seek from these a decision
.s,i compelling the ecclesiastical authorize
to grant the burial in the family plot
Appeal was carried to the Privy Council
~ England, which has not properly consioel
ed the real merits of the case, deciding tha
ork burial shall be granted in the consecrate
iral ground but without the ecclesiastical cers
tier mopy. This decision was probably hit nE
The On as q compromise, but WAS q contraolS
The tSe ns
to might be saved in accordance with IL
the treaty of cession. The Privy Councillo
Rev. forgot that the burial in consecrated grour
Kos. against the laws of the Church was mo
:. E. open violation of this freedom. One cons
Re- ouence flowing from this burial of one e
the communicated would be that according
DR., the Church's law the cemetery would
ercy considered desecrated or as II not cons
lress Grated and the serious lncOnvenlen
fter would follow, that new cemetery won
nails be equired for the interment OF Catholi
luest until this obstruction were removed.
f ad What happy compromise this OF t
ssive Pryy Council of England! Aud yet I
mia question was very simple to any one W
carts chose to study the laws of the Chur'
tting These, be it remembered, were guarante
ex- their full force by the treaty of cessi'
and The members of the Canadian lnstitI
rer of may boast of having brought on conn
0 the between the highest civil tribunal and
ecclesiastical authority. They have sho
that they were animated by a spirit Il
a., rendered them worthy of the episcopal I
uiu s o. and of the Reproduction Of all good Gait
II lies, Yet We cannot but conclude Il
soman British justice was blinded by British al
f New patty to the Church. British prude
'nts of seems to have delayed the dispatch OF
ejoice formal decision, and probably will seek
)Isnop avert the cOnsS auence OF lts hastlness.
If use II would he hazardous TO violate a N
cause ... fundamental condition on which ha
IN nrsoG Englaud's right to the allegiance of Cat
itself nc Cauauiaus' auu w "''o"Hto u! az tHJ
hat he tlce the Cathollc ecclesiastical auChoiAI
her ns whose influence has undoubtedly been
our in ways cast on the side of submission to
ecause civil authorities. The reason why t
omiug, refuse snbmission now is because they
It him, osLed to ,inlate laws that have n n
weak 49,; ~ .iatr oiIarionco W. orc
"a cam aware of the possibility of such con
,ithout happening in our midst, though we b
full of no treaty of cession whereon to rest
See of claim for tue freedom of the Church in
titude. matter. The equity of our courts has p
9th be- ticallv come to the conclusion that in Il
svoNon mattsrs connected so ultimately with
a a OF ligiOn, each denomination makes its
beyond roy HI0SOueI "Niou u snH nh wiz uoi
ave not EesPect' Snu noG 1HO" Ino S9PIioS
sion, to Whlms OF any reoellous members &c