New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-08-06
THE C1THOLIC LONTROVERSY.


other day bearing the signature "A Catholic
American" and eutitled Catholicism and
Satoicsm," must have been written by a
singularly indiscrect friend of the distinguished
Archbishop Of New York and doubtless, in
common with all loyal Catholics, he deplorcs
its appearance. In the first place, it informs
the public that the friends of the Archbishop,
il not the Archbishop himself, are bitterly OPP
posed to the mission and policy of Monsignor
Satol That fact alone ought to have pre-
vented any friend of the Archbishop from writ
ing such an article. The Pope has again and
again in most unmstakable terms declared that
tho Apostolic Delegate is his representative
in the United States, and that he has full
power to decide all cases that would otherwise
go to Rome for settlement. How ample and
far-reaching his powers arc was proved in the
McGlynn case. He restored that priest with
out requiring him to make any apology to
Archbishop Colrigan, whom he had disobeycd
Nor is it possible to say that in doing so Mon
sgnor Satolli went beyond his commission ;
for Dr. McGlynn aftcrwad visited Rome, and
was graciously received by the Pope, who re-
stored him to all his priestly faculties. Yet
the writer of this Article makes n violent at
tack on Satollcism.' lie might as well at
tack the papacy. The Archbishop of New
York has good reason to pray that he may be
delivered from such defenders.
But besides publicly ranging the Archbishop
in an attitude Of opposition to the Apostolic
Delegate, loyal Catholics will see many other
things in this article to dcplorc. As defence
Of the Archbishop it is weak and rs an attack
on his enemies it is clumsy ard yirulent. Its
thinly yelled declaration that the mission of
the Apostolic Delegate will disrupt the Church
in this country is hardly happy expression of
loyalty to the Pontlf whose representative he
i. The same thing may be said of the threat
that American Catholics may rctalate by re-
fusng 10 contribute Peters Pence. Even if
II is true, it Is ono of those things that an
Archbishop cannot afford to have any of his
friends say. a profound acquaintance with
Catholic theology is not needed to know that
it is neither wise nor polite for a Catholic to
threaten the Pope. The Juggling in of Arch
bishop Corrigan's failure to be made Car
dinal because Of the advent of Alonsgnor
satoli is piece of wretched bad taste. For
it puts the Archbishop in the attitude of a
disappointed sorchcad. an indgnity from which
the uieH bII't Nv H'iuN puSHl W ndNc pro-
tectCd him. Moreover, To say. as the article
docs. that victorious rebels" were able 10
keep the Cardinals hat from going to man
who h;H learned" it, is not so much a con
demnation of the victorious rebels" as Of the
Pope and his Apostolic Delegate. 1t is the
Pope, and not "McGlynn and his s,mpa-
thzcrS." who creates, or refuses 10 create
Cardinals.
1t is not the place of Il secular journal to
decide the merits Of many of the questions
raised in this conflict. The outside public in
deed, would have no right to assume that there
was such a conflict were it not for the appear
ance of this article. But this much may be
said. since both sides have now taken the pub
lie into their confidence: II. as seems to be
the case, the question is whether the wishes
and policy of the Pope shall be carried out in
the American Catholic Church. all good Catho-
lies will eventual, be found on the side of the
Pope Monsignor Satolls mission may be a
mistake, and his acts may be unMse But so
long as he is duly accredited by the Pope no
Catholic can oppose him, either openly or
secretly, without becoming rebel against the
Church % Rome