, 1875-09-26

= | which was T9NQ ID ell tud GQu1E1G
o OF the Diocese, condemnng the majorit
t | for declaring that they were the proper judge
of the morality Of the books in their library, til
j Council of Trent having decided that that va
T the Office OF the Bishop, aad also for declarn
that the library contained only moral books
: | whereas it contained books which were on til
: Index 81 Rome. The Bishop cited decision o
the Council Of Trent, that anyone Who read
kept be1eticaI works should incur the sentenc
: of e1coulnunicat;on, and that anyone who reae
or kept books forbidden On other grounds ehou1t
, | be subject to severo punishment. The IN
, stitut however, did not reecind its resolution
IN 1865, Guibord and several other Catholics o1
Montreal appealed to Rome against the circular
OF the Bishop. The appellants received no an
ewer to their application. The Pope, however
sent an answer to tho Bishop relating to it,
| quiries made by him, and this anRwer the BlshoF
published in 1869. The ,'decFetum" OF the
stltut while it taught parnicious doctrines" md
also prohibited the publishing, retaining, keep
ing, or reading the "Annuaire" OF 1868. The
Bishop informed all whom it might concern
that, if they persisted in keepinG or reading the
"Annuaire," or remained il the 1ustitut. they
would bo deprived Of tho Sacrament even on
| their death-bed. At q meeting Of the
"InBtitut," held on the Esd Of September,
1869, it WIS resolved that the objects OF
the Society were purely literary and scientific,
and that it, as society, held no doctuaal teach-
| ing whatever. but was anxious to exclude the
| teaching of nil pernicioua doctrine in general.
1t resolved also that tho Catholic members ut
the - Irsti:ut," having heard the condemnation
| Of the "Annraire" Of 1868 by The Church au-
| tho1ities at Rome, wcre desirous Of submitting
| to the decree. These resolutions were followed
| by letter Of the Bishop, dated Oct. 80, 1869,
| in which he denounced the concessions Of the
''Instltut as hypocritlcal. Among the reasons
/ Why tho Bishop considered the concessions insuf-
ticient was that tho Society had adopted resolu-
tiou ''cstablishing in principle religious tolerat:on
| which has been the principal cause Of the con-
| deinnation Of the Tnstitut." The letter again
! gave tho members OF the - 'Inetitut" to UNDER
| stand that they would be refused the Sacrament
oven ut death il they persisted in remaining in
it. Guiboru died suddenly Nov. Is, 1863, Of an
attack OF paral. sis, and on the 20th his widow
requested the parish priest to bury his body in
tho cemetery. The parish priest answered TINT
he had applied to the Administrator Of the Dio-
ce6e for instruction, and that the Bishop had di-
rccted him to refuge absolution to members Of
the Institut even to the last. He could not,
therefore, he said, permit ecclesiastical burial
to Joseph Gulbord, whereupou writ of man.
damus issued. wiiich, however, was no more
than proceeding to chow cause Why writ OF
mandamns should not issue. The defendants
pleaded that they had not refused to bury the
body. alleging that they were entitled to point
out tho place in the cemetery where Gulbord
should be buried, and that they we're ready to
give him such burial r. under the rules OF the
Church he was entitled to receive; that Guihold
had not complied with the rules OF tho Church
oE QpEyeu tt5 H. JuOCtlGnh, 4uu tuat the QeleQQ-
ants were the sole judges of how aud where he
should be buried in the cemetery. They pleaded
also that civil courts are Incompetent to question
decision OF the ecclesiastical authorities on &c
ciesiaBtical matters. ard could not inquire into
the grounds upon which ecclesiastical burial had
DEGREES Of the Council Of Trent
with regard to the Index and con-
concluded with the ayeEment that, in conse- !
quence, Gnibord was to be considered q !
-, ~
obnoxious to the canouical penalties imposed by !
the Catholic ritual, among which Was tho priya- |
tion Of sepulture, ard that the Administrator of |
the Diocese, taking all the facts Of his case into |
consideration, had decreed that Guibord should |
be deprived Of ecclesiastical burial. Tho decis- |
ions Of the inferiot courts from which IN ap-
PEAL wa8 taken by the ''Insttut Capad1en' ~ to |
the English prlyy Council are passed over. Sir
Robert J. Phitlimore introduces the decision OF
tie main question IN issue with the inquiry:
- What is the question here to be decided It
is the right OF Gu1Dord to intcrment in the ordina
~ way in the cemetery Of his parish, right en-
1orceable by hts representative" Tho ques-
ton WIS not so much one of burial as of burial |
of the body from which, thoir Iordships remark
ed. "implies degradation not to say lnfamy."
The question whether ecclesiastical burial might
not be forfeited in certain cases was not raised.
1t was only contended by appellants that such
forfeiture WAS not incurred by Guibord. aud
that, according to the law Of the religious COM
nunity to which be belonged, he retained at the
Time Of his death his right to be buried in the
larger poTton OF tho cemetery in the usual man.
ner.H
Their Lordships considered auch matters rs
baptism, marriage, and burial as matters partly
civil and partly ecclesiastical. and declared it
for Bishop to deprive Catholic
subject Of any Of these rights. "E1 nero
orived Of ecclesiastical burial in places clearly
provided ior by tho Law Of the Church, but in no
3ther case. And courts Of justice hare right |
Ind are bound to inquire whetler such dep1iva-
ion has been in accordance With the law and
:ules of discipline of the Roman Catholic Church,
Ind whether the sentence, If any, by which it is
sought to be justified, was regularly pronounced,
md b. competent authority, |
Having laid dorm these principles, the Court
.tes the Law OF the Church on the question OF
PROVISIONS Of the ritual are, In substance,
8 follows: Ecclesiastical burial is to be
efused: First, to all who do not profess the I
;atholic religion, such as Jewa, heretics, IN t
e unbaptized. Third, to those who have been 8
by name, and who have shown i
70 signs of repentance. Fourth, to suicides c
'ifth, to those killed in duel. sixth to those 3.
nless peuitent, Seventh, to those who have
ID bad lives and refused to repent before death.
ighth, to public sinners, such as fornicatora, |
rostitutes, uFurerB, etc. I
Ihe PnVy Ccuncll say TINT tho refusal Of &C. |
lesiaatical burial to Guibord s not justified by
be FIRST second, fourth, fifth, Or seventh Of the
boVe rules. He could not be brought within +
ne third, because not communicated by | !.
anne. ''That such sentence might be
assed against Roman Catholic in Il
anada. and that it might be
30 duty OF the civil courts to respect and give n
1ecs to it, their LordBhipa do not deny" Gui- =
ord could not be brought under the sixth rule, -
ecause he did not refuse to communicate at s
ast... The Sacrament was refused to him be- q
rse ''e remained member of the 'sInstitut" Il
Ioreoyar, it Was not on that ground that &C. r
esiastical burial was refused him in tho first in
ance. -
The last cause Of refusal to bury Gtiihord was II
lat he was 'pnb1io sinner" Certain classes IL
public sinners we're enumerated in the rules. t;
uibord could not be brought within ary Of y
lem, nor was ho shown to be guilty Of any Of ~ ~
nse "ejusdem Generis as those specified. To u
low discretionary addition, or m enlargement il
the categorles specified in tire ritual, would II
fIaugEt with the most startling con- G
quences. In the words OF the Court: "For =,
stance. the ct caetera might be according to ., =,
g exigency Of the particular case, expanded so Of
to include within its bann any person being OF
habits Of intimacy or conversing with mem. Cl
r OF literary society containing prohibited 70
-