Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-08-09

appeal 10 satolll, who upheld the ac-
ton of the bishop. The society, lighting
Tor the cause Of beer, not yet satisfied,
directed another appeal 10 the pope's
representative, Al the same time en-
deavorIug to afaign the tish,p before
the national convention Of the society
a proceeding unheard OF In the history
Of the Roman church.
In his second decision satolli lays
down the general principle that u be-
longs IN the dulles Of y bishop 10 find
out what ls good Tor the people Of his
diocese, and that he has power 10 com.
mend, forbid. counsel, OF puIml. 10 be
done whatever he may Judge con-
ducive to bile own duty and the good Of
the church mambers lie iur.hor de.
clares that Bishop wAttefsou's decree
ought by no means to be- subjected 10
the Judgment " every private In.
dividual " every asscmDlage Of simple
satnolics or rtIzsnt, " anu concludes -
followsi
Therefore those things which the
Right Reverend Bishop hss commanded
iu bis decree appr1yt, AMI decide that
they arc To- bo observed, b 90. 10 they for
tho time boiug aoom to- hs.l The material
interests OF somo they Will nave 10 be
patiently bufuO for The good oi tho
many aud tho honor OF our Catho lie
church.
This decision and the premises on
which II Ia based deserve the closest
attention. IL is evident that It vest,
The Cath lie bishop, with almost un.
Hunted authority or rather Il reveals the
vast powers entrusted 10 The discretion
u those ecclesiastical officials. AZ to
the liquor lfaiil1 Il seems clear, accofd.
ing 20 thls declaration, that auy bishop
who may nnd that the welfare Of the
diocese requires No suppression, he eau
prohibit ii In AZ IT, forms 10 far ~
Catholic membets are concerned, under
penalty Of the ban Of the church.
AM he Il responsible only 10 HE
superios In onice.
But l. this authority limited only to
the regulation Of that trafic1 |, does
not appear 10. for when tue pspal able.
gate lays down ~ a general principle
thsI among = bishops duties Il that
10 nnd cut what Ia good for
the people and prohibit what he thinks
IL not good, II oviden, that tho gates
are thrown Wide open 10 dlgniiarlcs
with episcopal authority 10 sofulinize
every held Of activity on which a Cit.
lsn VI society Of citizens is engaged,
be It mercantile, professional or poliii-
cal. IL isa logical sequence from the
principles laid down, that u a bishop
fails to ascertain what 10 politically as
we'll as morally good for his Catholic
n ok, snd to "ftcommenJn what In
HE judgment IL good, he IL
negligent VI one Of his duties. IL
10 hard to erase tho impression
that Ia tho littls tusile between the
bishop aud the liquor dealers an coca.
sion was found 10 intimate TO the
clergy that their interference In mat.
tiers not strictly according 10 the
American view) coming under the
jurisdiction Of the church, will from
now on Ia this country not be cen.
sured by the highest authorities. OF
course, there IL nothing surpriiiDg 10
this except the frAnknsss and open ness
with which the policy Of Rome IL
acknowledged. Further developments
will show more clearly what ths pope's
representative really had In Wow In
his now famous decision ami what the
consequences will DO Ia other affairs
than those directly involved.