The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-03-23
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS.

!. BISHOPS AND PRIESTS.
CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE LATE
ORDER FROM RoME-ApPEAL TO THE PRoPA-
OF BISHOPS TO DE STRICTLY DEFINED
1HEoLoGIAN's VIEWS.
The announcement in the HERALD, on February5
Of last year. that the jurisdiction of Bishop Conroy.
of Ardagh ireland. Papa Ablegate to Canada. was
to be extended to the United States created CON-
motion among the bishops and clergy in every Sec
ton Of the Union. The information impaired
to the HERALD by an eminent divine connected with
the Propaganda but it dscredited by the clergy
in this country generally The truth of the state
ment was established shortly sfterward. when the
Propaganda resolved to Decree but before the
Bulls were promulgated the Ablegate died suddenly
of syncope ut the residence of Bishop Power. st.
Johns. Newfoundland the 4th of August last year.
Meanwhile the inquiries OF the Ablegate regard to
the disputes between the bishops and clergy in
this country had such effect in the Sacred College
Of the Propaganda that the celebrated decree was
issued dvesng the bishops Of much of their power.
They enjoined to appoint in every diocese
council. to be known "Judices Causarum," who
should constitute tribunal for the trial Of
priests against whom charges might be preferred.
and who should pronounce verdict OF innocent or
guilty. If the Bishop to whom the finding should
be transmitted would the matter would
end IL the judgment were not adverse to the
accused priest but otherwise the latter wonld
have the right to appeal to the Metropolitan (the
Cardinal Archbishop in this section) and IL the ad
decision should be confirmed by the Council Of
the Metropolitan then the accused priest had the
right OF appeal to the Holy See. The right OF ap-
peal remains involate should the Bishop refuse TO
in verdict of acquittal, and il such verdict
be approved in Rome. has been the case
in almost every instance since the order promul-
gated the Bishop enjoned not only to restore the
priest to his functions and charge but to make pub
lie announcement of the fact from the pulpit. Such
the in the doceses of Louisville and De-
troit. The Bishop of the latter diocese has recently
sent his resignation to the Pope The bishops in
nearly every instance dissatisfied with the order
(the full text Of which has been published In the
HxRAID). but it meets the hearty approval Of all the
priests in the country, 1t affords them protection
against the caprice Of their bishops. many Of whom
have made direct appeals to Rome for .
reconsideration Of the order. Bishop McQuade. OF
Rochester. whose bitter controversy with Father
OFlaherty in the first year of his episcopate will
long be remembered. has paid visit to Rome re-
Gently for the express purpose of having the order
modified. 1t is noteworthy. on the other hand that
Eastern and Middle States. with few preates Ike
Bishops Lynch of Charlest N. and Kane, OF Wheel
heavy load OF responsibility. and in the end pro-
notes mutual confidence between bishops and
Church and clerical discipline.
NEW APPEAL TO ROME
The order or instruction from Rome signed by
Cardinal Simeoni Project OF the Propaganda has NOS
thus far been satisfactorily carried out Conflicts
have arisen between the bishops and the JUDGES
Causarum or Trial Council which necessitated
another appeal to the Holy See. In one recent In
stance. which is to be made a test case on
taking advantage of the order by appointing prose-
cutor twho is generally the Vicar GeneraD denied the
OF the tsa ths
entitled to an advocate but the Bishop refused to
admit it. The Council Of JUDGES insisted on their
rights, the Bishop remained obstinate hence the
late appeal to Rome. HERALD reporter. in CONVEX
sation with several priests in the dioceses OF Albany
and Rochester during the past week. found the clergy
in every instance in OF the appeal The follow.
ing interview with eminent theologian Of the
Albany diocese will explain the controversy IN
detail: =
MISUNDERSTANDING that you have read the
cent instruction OF the Holy SEQ to the bshops OF the
United States. should like to ask you few ques-
tons this important document. And. frst - re-
CARDS the matter OF counsel tor the accused clergy
man?
DIvINE-You mean. suppose. is the accused priest
entitled to appear before the Judicial Commission
with his counsel? Precisely so. Certainly he has
this right by the sacred of the Church. accord
ing to the testimony OF all canonists.
table writer's on ecclesiastical law on this pointf
DIvIHE-Ycs; Devoti, De Angeles Sogla, ReifenP-
tue All these teach that accused cerics have righs
to advocates and that 1t would be contrary
both to natural and canon law to condemn them
without such defence.
REPORTER-But do you think the bishops viii
allow this under the instruction?
DIvINE-They will not am sure. undertake to
Church.
RxPonrxR-But suppose a bishop should sbso-
lutely forbid the commission to allow counsel to
accused priest brought before them for trial. what
would be the resut9
notice OF such prohibition or would acquiesce. or
would not act till further instructed from Rome.
REPoRrKR-But in case they proceeded to try the
DIvISR-They would be Obliged to try him then
parte; for priest will appear before them ex-
cept by his counsel or advocate. and. being con.
demned unheard and undefended, ne would appeal
to the Metropolitan, who, affirming tho Judgment
OF the lower court. the case would go 70 Rome,
RRPoRTER-And what do you think Rome would
DivrsK-Undoubtediy that the accused must b.
tried and heard through his counsel advocate.
REpoRrxR-From what you say am beginning to
that the commits sion is no small Limitation Of
DIvINE-No doubt the instruction was intended to
limit aud does materially limit the powers OF tho
which consists in the hearing and sitting and admis.
sion of evidence liz highly important to be shorn
of 1t is small or rifing Limitation Of the Bishops
right q q judge. But they have to
blame for this but themselves; for ut all times
they have shown themselves avcrse to all rsgu-
lar canonical proceedings. and by their arbitrary
and summary decision Of have given needless
trouble to the Holy Sec notice in tho instruc-
ton itself. which says that from all quarters Of the
United States priests have lodged complaints ct
komo against their treatment by the bishops. The
Holy Nee has always urged the bishops 70 favor the
speedy introduction of regular canonical forms and
proceedings, but has always been met by the bishops
with the objection that tho country was not yet
ready for such regularity.
RKPoRTEn-I inter from what you say that should
any bishop now write TO the Holy See aud promise
that he would nj once hold regular court, according
70 the prescriptions Of the Holy Canons. he would
be exempt from the operation Of the 'instructon."
which. II stands. IL mandatory upon the bishops.
DIvISE-I do not doubt that his request would DO
granted immediately since In this way all difcul-
ties would be easilyfdcih paco 20 use the words OF
the INSTRUCTION and adjusted. And. indeed
were Ia their place should not hesitate moment
about adopting this course. since 1t must DO very
CALLING to them to have their Jurisdiction 80 largely
curtaied ~ 1t Is plainly by the Instruction.
REPORTER.-Has the bishop . right TO be present %