The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-03-08
THE JEsUITs ONCE MORE.
Bishop Chatard Makes Final Reply TO the
Charges of Bishop a. Cleveland Cox.
New York Independent.

| Bishop Chatard Makes Final Reply TO the
Charges of Bishop a. Cleveland Cox.
| New York Indep endent.
Right Reverend Sir-Yesterday your note of
Feb II. incosIng the open letter, published in
| the Ind ependent OF Feb. 9, to which reply,
was received. must thank you for the courte-
| Gus manner in which 1t was sent II in answer
| ing, there shonld be any appearance of want of
| regard. disclaim it; but initiating you in free
dom of expression, shall speak plainly and to
I must decline accentine your
coincidence on the loss of my opportunity
| to raise the Catholic people to q
| high grade iE your estimation, by rebelling
AGAINST the teachings of the Vatican Council.
| Were you not aware at the time you were max
| Ultramon tanism, that. since the Vatican Coun-
ell, such distinction is impossible. this council
having definitely rejected and condemned CALI
canlsmS If you were not, then you show your
| self not trustworthy writer, for it is our duty
20 know of what we write. If you were your
distinction leave you to qualify. Perhaps you
| teachings. If so, may tell you they two
very different things; Gallican teachings affect
ed the primacy of jurisdiction and nfalibility of
| the Roman Pontiff; ''Gallican liberties re-
| earded the privileges of the French church ex-
| ceptionaly granted. These CELEBRITIES" have no
place here, and the duties of all so clearly
/ laid down in the Council of the Vatican, that,
Ike obsolete things. these liberties" have had
| their day, and belong to the past Your pro-
| while perhaps doing credit TO your learning,
| would very probably be regarded only in the
| light of ecclesiastical brio. a-brac.
regret that you should have allowed YOUR
| self TO speak disparagingly. not to say con-
temntuonsy. of the Catholic people of the
| United States. you especially, an Anglican
/ bishop, bishop of that church which for three
i hundred years and more has had it's foot on the
/ neck of Ireland, ami studiousy impoverished
it's inhabitants of the Catholic faith. and de-
/ prived them OF education. Delicacy, not to say
sense of justice, should have checked your pen.
| The part the Irish Catholic has played in the
history of the country is noble one; and many
/ as IW9ch we la 49,
from all classes the tribute of their admiration
for his mauly bravery the field of battle.
You permit yourself to go further than this.
You make attempt, which eavors of the
Know-nothing days of your residence in Balti-
more. to excite hostility against the Catholic
Church. You presume TO call American Catho-
lies foreign colony" You attempt to excite
the feeling of the ignorant and prejudced
against them. You strike to Put them before
and have the courage to bring for
ward resolution passed by u tumultuary
meeting in New York. 20 support your
assertion that Catholics are Sin bondage to a
foreign potentate." Truly. my dear Right Rev
erend Sir, your residence in Buffalo must have
made you fall little behind the tunes Are Won
not aware that the audience to which you refer
was a very mixed onea Did you not know that
beyond the insignificant number that have
shown contumacy. the Catholics of New York
are giving grand examine Of how freemen
submit to the 'sweet yoke" of Jesus Christf
All New York knows this; you. it seems, do not
And then. how could you have the conscience
to refer TO Catholics as disoval when the records
of our wars. the grand work of the Catholic
Church through her priests. her chaplains
the battle field and her sisters in the hospitals
Is an open book to alH When to such acts,
which speak louder than words, we add the
bright example of the "hated" Jesuits. who, in
Maryland, IN concert with Lord Balti-
more, founded the first tolerant colony
OF what is now country
it is incredible that gentleman of
your position should have wished to have from
me to the question whether the
Catholic Church in America will be loyal to the
Constitution! The facts are there to answer
you. Next to her fidelity to God, all the affection
of that church is for this, our country. And
while the rest of you look hopelessly around on
the surgng masses. powerless to control them
with church authority to spaak in the name
and with the truth of God. che alone gives the
word of safety, curbs passion. lays down the law
they know she is their best adviser, their
mother You know well as / do that the
property holders of America. st this moment.
regard the Catholic Church as the bulwark of
soeiery, the only influence capable of resisting
the food OF socialism; and this through the
charity she has from God, which loves the poor
well the rich. while her temples thank
God, are the homes or the poor. Such is this
church, against which anglican bishop seeks
TO STIR up the most bitter feeling, and even per-
secution.
To come to my letter in The indianapolis
Journal OF Jan. Is. which you style eratutous
attack you. 1 must say first, il was not
Rratu,tous. For the first time saw this letter
from you to refute which mine was written,
published by clergyman of Muncie. Its gross
the eyes of my people, and before the
non-Catholic community Such falsi-
ties [ have right and a duty to
dlspeL In speaking of that letter GU complain
that nisrepresent your sermon" in Baltimore
by calling IL violent attack tho Catholic
Church. was only giving my Impressions OF
years ago, for public opinion then gave YOU the
character of bitter enemy of the church AS
you object modify ard use the term vigorous
or determined" in short. something after the |
style of your present letter.
Then you say insinuate a want of theological |
knowledge on your part by che reference to |
your quoting from the ..Encyclopaeaia Britain
MICA Well, really. my dear Rt. Rev'd sir with
out offense. did bot know whether that par
ticuiar point you had gone further. It your |
been led to trust to DR.. Littledale, though even
that cannot excuse you. Now that know that
you have written SO much, and have edited
work on THE Moral Theology of St Ligourir
am still more puzzled to understand how YOU
could have written what you did. AS l said in
my previous letter. referred to above.
the 'Encyclopada.' had gone TO the source
whence the extract was cited he would have
found the following TO enlighten his mind were
pcss1oie TO perce the pannply OF his prejudice.
quote from the jesuit author p Curry an
by Antonio BallAriui IN fhe treatise
on Human Acts he says, No 80 "Any choice Of
an evil means bad act; but not every choice
NJ a good means is a good act,p berause the pur-
pose or end might not be good for the end de-
Lermines the goodness of the act who
ever bad means for a good purpose is
entity of the wickedness which is in that bad
means" Note. that this is the principle here
,nught TO be- sewhere and universally applied
n each particular case This. therefore, Is the
maxim of the Jesllts as far re-
moved from your asserted maxim laid TO their
harRe. that ''tne cad jnstifes the means as
ight Is from darkness / leave this before the
,nblic. who will know how to judge between you
md me.
As for your-I must curb myself to call ii
'niy cruel and undeeeryed-tirade on the
Issuits can only say that you have delved in
ne archives of their enemies to find charges
AKar ana vuhn vha%sw /
ono against them during the latter part of the
ighieenth century but little else than
lerce persecution of bad men. shows himself 70
70 SHALLOW student of history. Even the sup-
Essay Of Gen. Bradley I. Johnston. Baltimore