The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1878-03-17
The Pope's Fortune.

The EcutHUeStcTH SOoNy'S''N@''
indeed, a scienti2c dodger, but 1t 10 ~ 'eas'
a most persistent one. 1t has been lnViu'-
ously aspersing the memory OF Pius IA
a man whom Protestants, jews and zen
tiles have hastened to hOnor-and "hen
pushed to the wall with questions testipg
the amount of it's information, simply
aodoes them, After the Italian usurpation
of the Papal States, spontaneous and aoun-
dant offerings from every part OF Christen-
dom poured into the Papai treasury our
candid neighbor calls these contributions
"nln.s.n and states that they were ''sohc't-
.du As to the truth of both these asser-
tions, we leave ouringenuous contemporary
IN settle its little Misunderstanding with
History as best it may. The day haS
nassed when Calvinism could mould his
torv after it's own whims and manufacture
n public opinion to suit its own purposes.
But by far the worst part OF it's attempt
WAS the intimation of worldHEess anu
ayarice in a character 30 highly esteemed
for unselfishness and modification ss that
of the holy Pontiff referred to. he was
charged with having amsssed an immense
"fortune'-a private fortune, OF course.
We asked the Presbyterian, among other
Thin gs-Htt -uusnswefed-te-l ns- know
whether the money under the Pope's
control was his private fortune or whether
1t was not rather the Papal treasury. Ihe
only reply to all is that it is too "thln )"
that is, the charge is virtually renewed and
the explanation lodged.
But the Presbyterian will not be allowed
to enjoy it's fancied security behind the
| intrencbment of persistent assertion. Facts
come to light, now days, too rapidly TO
hermit that q msstatement we'll stuck 20
should be as potent weapon as it used to
be. e. In the New York Times of late date
Rev. Father O'Reilly, of that city, published
n abatement which must cover with confu-
sion all csrpers at the reputation Of the
boly deceased Pontiff. He says that most
generous offerings poured in upon him
after the year 1870, that is, after the
loss of his national revenues; that by
frupality and economy, he created fund
ont of which his SUCCESSORS will derive 6
revenue of about $500, 900 yearly that by
his will this fund is left to his immmediat'
successor, and that he leaves nothing Il
his family.
Ia the Presbyterian satisfied Will i
admit iti Was the frugality of Plus
a virtue, or was It a vicef Did he accumu
o late q "fortune" for himself, or did n
: create new patrimony for the Papal See
e DID he regard the offerings of Christendol
" as intended for his own person or for h
# oflce7 Facts speak louder than Calvinist
d innuendo, and we appeal to them for answer
o on all these points.
'F So far from being tainted with the paltI
avarice which accumulates for the mel
love of accumulation, the Holy Faith
economical that a fund might be create
in Tor a noble and lofty purpose -AFaFi
,e labors for itself only ; the good Pope saw
or for others. We leave to the New Orlea
ly Presbyterian the solitary glory of sayil
10 that Plus TX. accumulated a large "fo
o3 tune.n History will record in characters
on living light the fact that he created
III Papal Treasury and founded new pat
mony for the Church.
The Presbyterian tries to create dive
,.t sion from this issue by repeating it's wit
ara cism as to the alleged fact that Plus IN h
all selected the Rothschilds as his bankers
m preference to q Catholic house. If tn
'ho were any Catholic bankers on foot
me with the Rothschilds in point of hnant
streug 9Th, then the question OF comparat
ct, honesty would come in, and not before