Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1892-12-18
IRELAND CONTROVERTED.
Mr. Conde b. Pallen, Editor Ofthe "Church
Progress" Criuclzes the Archbishop's
Published Interview.


Published Interview.
ST. LOUIS, Mo-, December 17.-Mr.
Conde b. Pallen, editor Of the Church
| Progress, who has made no secret OF his
hostility to Archbishop Ireland's school
doctrines, was asked to-day to make a
reply to the interview with that prelate
published to-day. Mr.. Pallen at first
refused to talk, being anxious to avoid
the appearance Of seeking notorlety.
He at length spoke as follows:
"Mr. Ireland does exactly what he
accuses his opponents of doing; that Is,
! attempting to create public opinion
in their own favor. His whole inter-
view is nothing more than al appeal to
what he calls the American mind" or
In reality to secular public opinion In
this county We would like to know
what secular opinion in this country
has to do with the settlement Of the
school question by the Church itself.
Certainly IL is not to be expected that
secular opinion as to what should con-
stitute Catholic education Will
dominate in the settlement OF
the controversy. The Liberals have all
along made desperate appeal to this
secular opinion as sort OF jury In the
case. But how they can imagine that
it will In any way become governing
factor is beyond the conception OF any
Catholic acquainted with the constitu-
tion Of the Church and the precepts OF
Catholic doctrine. Secularism has al
ways been, In the history OF the Church,
an antagonistic factor, inasmuch as 1t
-. nf
world; and we may lay it down as a
fundamental axiom that the world, the
flesh and the devil are ever triple al
lance in combination against the spir-
itual interests Of the Church. 1t is both
uncatholic and uHamerican to appeal TO
prejudice which has no legitimate rela-
tion to the question in dispute.
Notwithstanding Archbishop Ire
lands statement that Mgr. Satolli was
invested with plenipotentiary powers
to settle the school question, we have
no evidence to that effect. On the con-
trary both Archbishop Katzer and
Archbishop Elder have publicly de-
clared that Mgr. Satolll had no such
powers; and moreover the fact that the
Archblshops in their recent conference
refused to subscribe to Mgr. Satollrs
views is very clear evidence that those
views were not supported by the Pope's
authority. II they had been, the
Arch bishops could scarcely have point
| blank rejected them.
I'm the encyclical letter Of the pres
ent Pope to the French Bishops in 1884
he saws: And first, indeed, in regard
to domestic society, it is Of the greatest
| Importance that the children sprung
| from Christian marriage should be in-
structed in the precepts Of religion at
an early age, and that the studies In
which youth is accustomed to be edu-
Gated be conjoined with religious
| training. Truly the church has al
ways openly condemned what are called
mixed and neutral schools, and again
and again admonished parents in mat
ter OF such great Importance to avoid
them with all their might.
"Aow Archbishop Ireland reconciles
this with his view Of the subject is be-
yond conception. That it is repugnant
so Mgr. Satoili's published address on
the same subject is also apparent.
1.-THE assumption in Archbishop Ire
lands interview that his position on
the school question is also the position
of the American Catholic mind, seems
to me Enthusiastically overstrained, for he
he was the only one in the entire con-
ference who was ready to subscribe to
Mgr. Satolli's school propositions. And
when 1t is remem bered that each Arch
bishop not only expressed his own con-
yiction when he rejected them, but also
the concordant judgment OF each OF his
suffragans, more imposing array OF
American Catholic opinion against that
Of Archbishop Ireland could not be con-
caivad