The San Francisco call., 1896-01-02
REV, f D, BOVARD COMPARES THE FAITHS.

in all lands. Under this latter proposition we
feel bound TO say that he has done amazingly
well. We would not like to manage his crowd.
But as supreme ruler OF this part OF the uni
verse we feel equally bound to say-though
with deep reeret-that his success has not been
quite so marked.
The Bible is either the inspired word of God
or the plain record OF the early and Jewish
church,
The church has either made mistakes or 1t
has not. Ii it has, the burning and torturlng
OF heretics was villainous crime; If not, it
was right, and the same church would do ii
again ifit had the power.
The best way 10 reason down senseless an
tipathy is to use plain open truth IN plain PLAIN
suffering, but they can't be gulled long at one
time.
If the Roman Catholic church desires to free
itself from the suspicion that its Jesuits are q
deXterous, perfdious band of holy foxes, gllst-
ening with subtlety, bound together by oRths
black with treason, cursing and anathematlz,
ing all WHO dare TO think the thoughts OF God
for themselves. let her come out OF her hiding
and say In fair open way that other good
people are as good as she is.
Then there is the position OF the attitude oil
the priesthood toward the law.
Another fundamental reason for suspicion
now lying at the door of the Catholic church
in America is the anomalous attitude OF the
priesthood toward the law of the land. Are
they under or above the law2 If n priest were
asked by court of justice concerning matter
OF importance TO the state about which he
knew all the particulars through the confess
Sional box would he answer the quesuonsY
If it be said than he is under .priestly oath,
then plain people must infer that his oath,
whatever else il might be, is above the law
Other ministers make no such claim, nor would
they dare 10 do SO at the peril of their stand
ing among their associates.
Ii person should confess to q priest that he
had burgariEcd n house and killed the in
mates, Is the priest under obligation TO inform
the officers Of the law and have the person ar
rested Tor his oouhle crime2 II he pleads that
his sacred oath wlN not allow him to expose
the criminal, how, then, can the Catholic
church keen people from concluding that the
priest stree he will neither inform on the man
nor testify against him in a court of justice, is
not by virtue of his oath, both above the law
and, by construction, on the side of the crimi-
nas~ II Is only reasonable to suppose that the
priest not only ahSolyeS the confessing man
from the moral consequences of the act but
that he does SO in contempt Of society law.
Now note three things which place the
priest under suspicion: ~ He refuses to in
ioIm the officers, (2l He refuses TO testify. (3)
He abSolveS the man from the moral penalties
OF his crime.
7 suppose there must be some way TO clear UT
this whole matter, but the difficulty is that he
Tseople can't see why oil men are not alike be-
fore the law. To them, oathS, patented, regis,
tered, sealed or hardened by centuries OF time
amount TO nothing when justice cries out un.
der the heel OF wrong.
do not at this time question the validity Of
the priests pardoning act-which TO ProteS
tants seems absurd enough--I simply call at
tenuon 10 the fact that the priest assumes tC
operate secret code OF morals, ana brings
upon. him the curse of self-respecting society
hot initiated into his ways of doing things
34eok at one more aspect OF the case: If
priest knew through the confessional box that
man about 10 suffer capital punishment was
really innocent, would his oath permit him tC
give any part Of his knowledge in order 10 free
the innocent man? If it would, then why moi
testify against crime wellns in favor OF in
nocence? But II his oath Will not permit him
10 testify for the innocent when all the fact:
are clearly in his possession, then our Catholic
citizens must not complain If society brand.
their priest as a monster. Until he come.
under the law he cannot make affidavits set
ting aside this which:in themselves set aside
the law.
II il be said that he occupies the same legal
ground that is claimed by a prisoner who in
formally pleads mot guilty and is excused
from testifying in his own case, the answer is
wotold; First, the priest is not a prisoner
and second other men are compelled by courts
10 tell what they have confidentialIy heard
about crimes The laws of this country do not
recognize the secret code of the confessional
for the simple and sufcrent reason that no
body knows what il is. We suspect that il va.
Ties with the moral ideas of the priest.
These things are mentioned not in reproach
but To point out clearly the reason Catholicism
is under suspicion in America
F. D. BovARp.