National Republican., 1876-01-07
THE POPE, THE CATHOLIC BIGoTs AND
THE PRESIDENT

We print several communications else
where this morning which comment upon
the remarkable article from the Catholic
World reproduced in our columns yester-
day and upon our editorial criticism of
that article. They show that the subject
is one which stirS the profoundest depths
Of our social system, as well as an inclina-
ton to mix religion with politics, and
determination that the President shall be
sustained in the position assumed by him
in his Des Moines speech. GA Citizen"
who complains that previous communica-
tion from his pen was rejected by us, mis-
states, or is mistaken regarding the grounds
upon which it was rejected. We know
that the President has made an issue with
the Pope as TO the doctrine that the Church
should never be separated from the State
and the State from the Church, and have
unhesitatingly supported him in it, as every
true American has, and therefore could not
have rejected the communication referred
10 for that reason. We do not hesitate,
however, TO take issue with "a Citizen -
as to his assumption that Papal Infallibility
is an accepted belief in this country. As
soon as il is so accepted the citizen becomes
a subject of a foreign power and untrue
10 his natural allegiance. In Europe,
where Bismarck is fighting this dogma, the
influence of our free institutions is uu-
known, and the predominance of the
Papal power is inbred into a large class of
citizens. Years ago, when the Catholic
priesthood in this country was mainly
composed Of foreigners, men who were in
tiuenced. by that inbreeding, and not by
the spirit Of true American freedom the
predominance of the Papal power was
widely acknowledged. At that time no
one doubts that Papal Infallibility might
have been an accepted belief in the Catho-
lie Church of America. But, as we have
said, the sway Of that kind of bigotry has
exhausted itself. With the gradual in
stallation of Americar-born priests in the
Church, it has, as an organization, become
AmerlcaniZed, so TO speak, and we are,
therefore, inclined to agree with "CathO-
lie, who declares in his communication
that the Catholics OF this country, as
body, do not intend TO allow their re-
ligion 10 interfere with their political
or civil rights--in other words, that
they intend 10 acknowledge the
Pope merely as their spiritual leader,
the head of their church. and moth
ing more "a Citizen himself acknoyl-
edges this TO be his position. While YIELD
ing generous recognition to the Church as
the agent of manifold good, he seems to
have severed active connection with it on
account of the ''direful Encyclical of 1864"
He then undoubtedly deserves to he ranked
in the same category with Catholic, al
though the latter does not give the reason
for the faith that is in him.
We wish 10 be understood, however, to
coincide with ga Citizen in his opposition
to the style of Catholicity which he de-
scribes. II is the offspring of bigotry, su-
perstition and ignorance, tempered, it is
true, with the grace of cosmopolitan char
ity, but nevertheless, paradoxical as it may
seem, thoroughly selfish and destructive of
free government in its tendencies. We
hold that it is the Catholic bigots of this
style who are responsible for all of the bit.
terness that enters into our sectarian antag-
onism or competition. They are un-Amer-
ican. They are the men who would array
the Church against the Presidents Des
Moines speech, and who will reject the con-
serVative advice of the Catholic World.
The Plotestants who brand the Church !