New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-09
MGR. SATOLLPS MISSION.
DOMAIN CATHOLICS RETiCENT ABOUT H.
v,rv,xr VIEWS on THE SCHOOL QUESTION
DIR. M'GLYNN's STANDING STILL

IN Dpl ID
r,.ro has been good deal OF vagucncss about NV
., o,ioc, Of Mon.gnor Satcllis visit to TINS COUNT
and the matter i, made still coudicr ny t"e 'v,a
- nearly every Roman Catholic pFellie ana pr
y, rroulncnce 10 talk Archbishop Corriean VIII s"'
no,ri,r Vicar.Ccncral Farley and the Kew III
Henry 4 Brann likewise VIII sag hp'hihs' ~ "' ~
1, il almost impossible TO find any one VINO WI" 90 .
for publication, and even those VINO WIZ ui', g.,
matter request tlat their names be not "'""o''N
connection with whatever Is published ,,,
Nopsi,nor saroll', address, which was pup''S''u
v..t.rl,v excited much interest In Roman N"'no"N
circles vet no Roman Catholic prcaif priest w 10y
man would give his views OF 1t Tor puDhc""o"'
ados i .i,niicapt because It j. said TO convey ''e
opinion OF the Pope the school question: "oNseo
sators opinion was that Catholic parents cou'u "o'
he blamed for sending their children to pubic sc"ooi'
- &, ,ho.c schools they would receive better eu"
cation than in the parochIal schools, provided lieS
had made satisfactory provisions for the religious euu
cation OF the children. lie No"sh' '""V !" 49,
naces an agreement might be made De'"'e" ,"'
catholic authorities and the public school au'no''".o
whereby me latter might allow Catholic children 10
assemble in public schools after hours al" '
instruction in the Catccilsm.
seyeml Roman Csho'iu laymcn said mat '''s
thought that the address proved Mons'snor Sa'oi I"
he. q broad and liberalminded man. am "e'e e'N Nv
had bccn sent here. priest SAID, on the oon"a',
oo, al,bouqh he admired what Monsisnor Satoih hau
eoid REGARDING the school question: he oh h"t u'""
Inn; tne clergy In general agreed With MN "c
aid that large minority OF the American ArchDsh'ps
d,.sc rced with Monsiguor Saolli Mt the tme nc W.
n,,rcd his address 70 them. Archbishop SorTlei "'N
,rnpv others, he said do not believe that Sh"ioi'
,nts should send their children 10 any schooi o'hcr
tl,, a parochial one. II his opinion thht u'cSs
N,n.ignor satol changed his views on the Schooi
,,,,e,on he would have a hard time OF II WIN the
American ArchbIshops and Bishops In general HOW
oyer he said there are enough to side Win MOI
eirnor satoln to cause split on the question
whether Dr. Nct,iynn Is to be reinstated or ho' F"
n hard 20 tell and is inst hard TO say whe'hoF OF
not Monsignor ~aolN Will decide the case, II IL Il re-
oueued A we'll known lawyer. who i n ho"H'l
c,tboc said that h. had heard that every hihg hau
lao, done to make II easy for DR.. McGbnn 10 gct
hack his functions MS a priest In good standing Tic
believed that Dr. McGlynn had already tken steps
o lscomc reconcllcd to the Church. and lie thousht
that either Archbishop Corigan or DR.. McGynn 'oad
sci thr matter at res, If they wished u. lie th"ugh'
TINT their silence speaks for itself. II was m' opinion
that Dr. McGynn's case and the school question
brought Monsenor satolli 10 this country.
A pri,st said that he knew that Dr. McGynn would
be- rcnstatcd no matter what Archbishop Cori1gah
SAYS. You will notice. he said. that thc Arch
lisbon does not deny that Dr. McGynn Is 10 be- taken
hack hun simply dcnick that he said that That was
vhst would heppcn." MOnsgnoT catoh " cDi'ld'rfu
ly ms priest To- be hrad minded and learned &C.
c.ia,tic fully competent 20 hear ana decide cas-"
n priest ma, night, as well ~ bishop aud That The
Church Is willing to recognize and emphasize In"
fact. la. ., -.
regarding himself M0n.len SaiOll II HaS learned
- night that DIR. MGilvnn confined 10 H. room
suffering with a severe cold.