The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1876-03-26
Bigotry.

The Pisaysne, of last Sunday, had
column of paragraphs headed Religious
Notes." Among them we find Baptist,
Methodist, Presby terian, Episcopalian or
any other desired kind of Protestant
/" Notes." but not a word from Catholic
source. Moral: the Piesyune does net
consider the Catholic religion as in the llst'
In us:ng the word "Bigotry for our
caption, however, we do not make any
reference to the Pieayunes course in this
or other particulars, but to one especially
of the paragraphs selected by it IS Reii-
gious Note" 1t is the following:
THE CROSS AS AN ORNAMENT.
Rev. DR.. Patterson, who led the MONDAY
meeting at the rooms of the Y. N. C. A, re-
Gently, strongly censured the practice OF many
Christians in wearing the "Crucihx" as an
ornament. 1t was. esthetically considered, IN
bad taste-the cross being an instrument OF
cruel torture and from religious point OF
view it was still wOrse-an object of idoiatrous
worship by millions of Roman Catholics. He
was astonshed that 30 many Protestants conia
be 80 grossly inconsistent with their religious
professions as to wear it upon their persons as
favorite ornament.
DR.. Patterson has not a very lucid or con.
elusive way of reasoning if he be correctly
reported. The connection between premises
and conclusion is not as clear as might be.
Millions of Catholics worship the cross
idolatrously; therefore Protestants ought
not to wear it as an ornament. Thesequence
would have been just as rigid if he had
said: Therefore capital punishment ought
to be abolished. If he had inferred that
Catholics ought not to wear crosses because
of the temptation to worship them, one
could have supplied the missing link of the
syllogism, but why Protestants must be
deprived of the exercise of their taste be-
cause of Catholic temptations or misdoings
requires explanation.
1t would appear that Protestants might
very safely and properly wear crosses al
ornaments, provided they did Bei wershiI
them. and We presume the DR.. has no feal
of misadventure of that kind. 1t rather
looks as though the DR.. was not exactly
candid in stating his reasons. Perhaps his
objection is not SO much to the worshiping
of the cross as to the wearing of it. AS 6
| Christian, one would suppose that he
should be delighted to have such memen
to of his Masters love honored anc
cherished, provided :::.,ways that it were moi
adored. But he makes no distinction o.
the kind. He hints at no such desire. HI
objects, Indignantly to the practice for
reason which has no application whatever
to those whom he advises. And while thi
reverend theologian is so shy of honorint
the emblem of Christianity, he has no faul
to End with those who bid fabulous price
for Moody aud Sankey's chairs, stools ant
towels to be kept as objects of veneratioI
aud mementoes of sanctity.
Alb, Doctor We fear that you do no
n love the cross, that you do not venerate th
cross, that you are not follower of tn
e cross, that you hate the cross, that you ar
. jealous of its possible influence for good o
n those who may chance to wear it, that 20
), know perfectly we'll that NO Cathol
u worships it, and that you only assert th'
~ falseAood as q cover for your enmity to Il
: cross itself.