The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-02-28
AN INTERDICTION.
The Action Taken by the Bishop OF Alton
Against the Freeman's journal

e, ,. ~ :, ~; r.. , L,ig ' ~ NJ 1~c b., T,s
There is one thing | never did anticipate
II WINS that Bishop ~ tho Holy Roman Catho-
lie Church would or could, ever inilict upon me
u note ~ ecclesiastical official ccnsure. II has
happened. II will hs revoked. II live. and vol
unfairly. by the Bishop Of Alton, II no livesl
| intend protoundcst regard for the Right
nev. Bishop of Alton. He has censurrd the
Freemnns Journal tho very name OF whose
editor he does not know-and has interdiced
the hahitual reading Of It. TO his priests. after
two months from promu lgntion. and to the
futhful OF his diocese. under pain OF denial OF
absolution.
cision he will find what the influence of the
Heeindn's Journal has been among his do
cesans. Those who have taken IL for many
years. among them some who. taking II in
war times a. a political paper. became Catholics
10y reading II. will show their faith by giving 1t
:. It Is certainly not a sin. in itself to road tho
New York FieemdHs Journal There Is hardly
number Of II appears that has not n commu-
ncntion from some Bishop. or materials fur
nished by a Bishop. for editorial comment
cese OF Alton To read II alter two months.
Prom Ass,h.' A,tsIs ~ n. SIM, Por-r
II Is false that tho appreciation OF tho late
Archbishop OF Now York was Withdrawn from
us. At the first Provincial Council OF New York
tho matter was in hand. We plead with Arch
bishop Hughes-wa plead with tho Committee
OF Bishops and ,Theologians set to prepare the
matter. not to do it! But 1t was donel The
FreemdnS Journal became the official organ"
II became. as Its illes show. comparatively stu
than more-afrnid OF compromising occlesiastl-
cal authority. Finally We told the Archbishop
that his illustrious patronage WINS killing usi
That no one cared Tor journal that was some
came itself again,
1t is false that the Freeman is or has been. in
any way officially disnpproyed by Cardinal No
Closkey. our Archbishop. Were he not Official
ly to Nimonsh-but 50 much as TO express his
judgment TO US in any conceivable matter OF
discussion. ho knows we would heed him.
Once only on hs first return from Rome after
no N Ia "A I.tI to aim
With the Kindness Of atruc father to a rough
son. he comDlimented Us on some passing good
mnnncr reeoenishs how far " we o wers ph,
pointed out in what. for the present VIZ went
further than the Pope and tho Holy Roman See |
We took II "a an HdmOntion. though IL WAS
given 10 ~ not TO hurt were We weaker than
we arc And yet, though e touched a vita!
TOR It was that. has ever since unnerved US in
the discussion of the question that We had
looked at in different light.
Prom pt'ch ~ n. Ne ~, hhar. ~ NJ c'reiiHi
Cuihaf- tsrs's
The Fathers of the Council Of Baltimore de-
clnr" that no paper is recognized 10y them rs
Catholic unless Il bear tho appreciation " tho
Ordinary: this OF course does not condemn
papers that do not bear this appreciation: be-
sides n paper may benr Rn APPRECIATION with
Furthermore. the aamc council declares that
even in the ctse Of official organs the Bishop
Is to hc held strictly responsible" for those things
only IN which no attaches his signature.
What. however, settles practically beyond all
doubt the lnwiunrss Of publishing Catholic
journals which hnv" not NJ their head the M
probation OF the Ordiuaries In whoee doccs =
they Ar" Or nied, In N" practice almost unlvrr-
sIl in the Church OF issuing such publications..
Yet such papers have received warm cOmmen q.
dntinna even from tn" Apostolic See II II.
therefore, for all practical purposps certain
that II II nwiul to publish IA well M To read
such journals M fnr Hs the general laws NJ tho
Church are concerned; OF n step taken by mn
Ordinary IN pursuance 81 the provision Ii
bcrum cit &c. OF tn" 10Th rule of the lndeA we
have nothing TO say here.