The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-30
A oUrs1roy on CHURC8 LAW.
TIE Astitsss Or Catholics Toward sseeret
Societies IN the Uaited states.

n VVAoIAVN Sr SnO"1n Sh"s
Ths Astitsss Or Catholics Toward sseere
| Societies n the United ststes.
To TIE EDITOR OF TEE suN-Sir. In view o.
recent acts and utterances. a few words on the
attitude OF tho Catholic Church toward eek
tain societies in the United States might not
be out OF place.
The Third Plenary Council OF Baltimore. held
In tho year 1884. contains n long chapter on
that subject which entirely covers the situa-
ton. which received the appreciation and com
| mendation OF the ecclesiastical authorities
at Rome. and constitutes to-day the law
binding every Catholic In the United States. no
matter what his position. The Council declares
that forbidden societies are oftwo kinds-those
| forbidden explicitly or numinally. !. e.. by
name. and those forbidden implicitly. I. e..
falling within the range Of general condem-
nations. It says that the societies con-
cemned by name are only two. viz.
the Free Masons and tho Carbonarl.
1t says that the societies that are condemned
implicitly are all those whose members take an
| oath OF blind obedience. / e.. to do whatever
is commanded them whether it be right or
wrong. and which forbids the making known
tho purposes OF tho society to legitimate eccle-
siasticnl authority. However in order to pre-
vent confusion or diversity Of discipline in the
| Church In the United States the Council pro-
| vided that tho application OF these principles
| to any ono society In particular did not belong
| to the province OF any single priest, Bishop. or
| Archbishop Of the United States. nor to any
collection oven Of Bishops. but to a committee
composed OF all the Archbishops Of the United
States: and. in order further to prevent the
| possibility OF scandal in this matter, 1t pro-
vided that no direct application OF these prin-
cples should be made by name to any one
oil coriotv Svifhnnf thu nt,a
vote OF all tho members Of tho Commission.
| This was approved by Rome. and the decree ia
| found under No. 255 OF the acts and iecrces OF
the Third Penary Council Of Baltimore. The
words are as follows:
Moreover. to prevent the possibility of a confusion
Of discipline by tho federation In diocese OF
society which society Is condemned in another
the consequent grent scandal OF the faithful aud detr
ment Of ecclesiastical authority. we desire that
society be condemned by falling under OF
the clAsses indicated before the Ordinary has referred
the case to tho Commission which constitute
for deciding such cases and which shall consist OF all
the Archbshops Of these provinces but the society
should not seem to all to be ono to be condemned. re-
must be had TO the Holy See in order that
decision may be had and discipline be preserved uni
form In our provinces"
Since The time OF the Council this Commits
sion Of Archbshops holds q meeting every
year to take into consideration whatever
points OF Church discipline the past year has
presented rs most demanding attention. In
the year 1890 they assembled in Boston and
took into consideration the condition Of socle-
ties In the United States that were under no
formal condemnation. and passed the follow
ing resolution:
Tho Free Masons excepted the societies most preva
lent In America such tho Odd FeliowA knights Of
PythAs Sons Of Temperance. &c. arc formally con.
demned by the Church: many OF these societies may
be- and very lik y are from their position and ten.
denotes, more or less dangerous to Catholics and It
were better by far that the Catholics had part in
them. Catholics should DO discouraged from joining
them: however when Catholics do belong the the
question OF leaving them or remaining In them must
Be decided BY the conscience OF each individual So
tho societies known to the Archbishops
there to bo absolute certainty Of any positive
wrong In thsm and consequently general mandate
can be issued forbidding them moreover. must be
prepared It was said. to leave much latitude
we'll 10 individual Catholics. restrictions
imposed upon them whore absolute necessity OF so
doing exitta would only irritate them and do harm"
The next meeting Of the Archbishops was
he'd at St Louis on tho occasion Of the Jubilee
Of Archbishop Kenrick. The question Of So
cieties was again placed under consideration.
and the Archbishops resolved to stand by the
DEGREES OF the Council OF Baltimore and by the
resolution taken in their meeting held at Bos-
ton the year previous. A slight correction was.
however. introduced in that resolution. In the
resolution taken at Boston the second SEN
tence terminated as follows: when. however.
Catholics do belong to them. the question OF
leaving them or remaining in them must be
decided BY the conscience OF each Individual"
In the meeting held at St Louis that part Of
the sentence was amended by adding the
words enlightened by his confessor." so as to
make it read however. when Catholics do be-
1op m than tha unaatjon Of Ian wing than n
remaining In them must DO decided by the
conscience OF each individual enlightened by
his confessor" This is absolutely the only
change made In the resolution. and this is the
law Of the Church in the United States in force
at this moment concerning the condemnation
OF societies and the attitude Of Catholics to-
ward them.
The Archbishop OF Milwaukee. In an article
in tho American Ecclesiastical Rerie,r. says that
the Boston decision was reconsiderei and
changed at st. Louis. and quotes in proof the
minutes OF the st. Louis meeting. leaving.
however. in blank the portion containing the
words that tell the precise modification made.
Tho mobilization. we have seen. was unim-
portant Archbishop Kntzer would leave his
readers to believe thatit was essential What
does no mean by so acting? The same Arch
bishop presented to the meeting long docu-
ment asking for formal reversal OF the Bos-
ton decree. The Archbishops paid no atten-
ton to tho request. The meeting over Is tho
Archbishop must remember. he said: But
have already condemned some OF these socie-
ties In my diocese. What an to do?" Tho
Archbishop OF a large city replied to him:
''State that you had overlooked the Baltimore
decree. which forbids individual Bishops to |
condemn societies." |
In the year 1913 tho Bishop OF Philadelphia. |
Francis Patrick Kenrck. wrote to the Consre-
cation OF Propaganda asking II Odd Fellows
and Sons OF Temperance were comprised In |
the COMBINATIONS published against tho
Free Masons: and in the year 1850 the Cardi-
nal Project Of the Propaganda transmitted the
reply OF tho Sacred InIuisition that they were
80 comprised For this reason some persons
In tho United States have regarded these So
cieties as condemned even since tho holding OF
the Council OF Baltimore. In the first place.
.l1.. To My Il mt thu