The San Francisco call., 1896-02-26

OF records as a witness. When the Catholic
interfering with temporal affairs. / am not
saying that divorce is right or wrong. Iwould
not give you offense If you believe it is wrong.
TO go into the Catholic books and find any
authority for the declaration that the church
claims and exercises dominion oyer temporal
affairs. am doing that thing. Why no intel
ligent Catholic doubts the proposition.
Now let us look at another point-let us see
what the law of the Catholic church has 10 say
what may be found on page 81, vol. /,
Ecclesiastical Law: Experience teaches that
the public or common schools in the United
States, owing to their very system, the text
books used and the class of children frequent
ing them, in most cases endanger both the
faith and morals of Catholic children sent to
eha dav Al posse psssao 6a epaa paPS
lished in every congregation
In other words the Catholic church says your
boys will degrade their sons by mere contact
the going to the same schools with them.
Think OF II; those little boys with four inches
OF upper lip [laughierl, heads on like monkeys,
playing with cocoanuis down in the tropics.
They will be degraded by Your sons and so the
Church of Rome want their children taken
away and marshaled by themselves. Perhaps
that is not an interference with temporal
afairs-the schools all being divine.
Here is q declaration from Cardinal Man.
ming:
"a starving man commits no theft if he saves
his life by eating of his neighbours bread so
much as is necessary for the support of his ex-
istence. The civil law yields before the higher
jurisdiction of the divine as the positive divine
law yields before the natural Jaw of God"
What picnic for trampsl Perhaps If we
were on the jury in the trial of a man for THEFT
who was shown TO have stolen what he
wanted to eat because h was hungry and had
II other means.of getting what he needed we
would not be disposed to send him 10 prison.
l am not criticizing this doctrine exactly
therefore, but you must remember that | am
speaking TO the question whe ther or not the
Catholic church is not disposed TO put its hand
hard down upon the temporal affairs OF the
people.
Rome have to ask Grover Cleveland to resign
his office? And yet the Pope has done that
thing to kings. Here is what the ecelesias-
tlcal law has 10 say by way OF explanation:
Ecclesiastical Law-"By what right was e
deposing power exerted by the sovereign pom
TINS There are two opinions among Catholic
merely by virtue of the Jus Publicum' =
OF the medieval ages; the other that the de-
posing power, as exercised by Gregory VII and
being included in the indirect power OF the
Pope in temporal things. This opinion is thus
expressed IN our article on Gregory VII pub
hshed she in in Bronson's Quarterly Review, April.
1879: The power itself H.. e. OF deposlng
princes) in radice, We hold is inherent in the
papacy; the power in action or its exercise de-
pends on external circumstance
have no quarrel with the Catholic laity:
some among them are my warmest friends. /
believe the laity do not understand whittier
they are drifting They do not understand
their real relationship to the church. be-
am their truest friend, in pointing out to them
that relationship.
l am a poor man. very poor man, and if
you came 10 my house you would discover
why. sometimes there are professions there
OF poor men-I think my doorpost is marked.
| onot say II as reflection in any way, for the
Catholic church is not responsible for it in
any way, but | am sure that very frequently
among the callers are members of that church.
Ihey are never turned away because OF that
TACT. They are as welcome as any other. 1t
has been my fortune to be banqueted several
times in my life, and the very last time it was
a Catholic organization-a Catholic literary
honored me. So it is not with the Catholic
laity that l have any difference-it is with the
doctrine OF their church. wherein it stands
antagonized to our American institutions
/ now quote from Ecclesiastical Law, volume
!, page 259 as follows:
"Pope Plus TX himself in one of his dis
courses says, that the right of deposing princes
has nothing to do with the pontifcal infalli-
billty, neither does it flow from the infallibil-
ity but from the authority of the Pontiff. Of
course Catholic is bound not only to believe
what the Pope defines eX cathedra but also to
accept and obey what he otherwise COM
mands"
Is this not plainly the right of the church to
exercise the absolute right in temporal affairs?
Yet Peter c. 1orke declares that if the Pope
ordered him to go contrary to the Government
OF the United States he would disobey the
rope. L say ludt INC IhlnOllC cnurCn
teaches that II knows no nations, knows no
continents but is above the state and exercises
dominion over temporal affairs.
The Pope declares that the Roman Catholic,
no matter where he is, whether in the United
States England, Germany or any other coun-
try, is bound to obey the church. DR.. McGlynn
dtsobeyed the Pope for a short time, but he
had TO do penance to get back
Eceleslas teal Law, volume l, page 257, de-
clares:
"The authority of princes and the allegiance
OF bjppfS in the civil state of nat IL of
divine ordinance, and, therefore, so long as
princes and their laws are in conformity to the
laws of God the church has no jurisdiction
against them or over them. If princes and
their laws deviate from the law of God the
church has the authority from God to Judge of
that deviation, and to oblige its correction.
When Christian world came into
existence the civil society of man became SUBJ
ject to the spiritual direction Of the church"
If the Government of the United States devi-
ates from the laws OF the Catholic church in
the United States that church has the authority
to exercise dominion over the country The
church teaches that it has the right to exer-
else authority over every country in the world.
Cannot the Catholic church, therefore regu-
late the laws to suit itself. If | can make the
Senator'S at Washington change the laws to
suit myself, as C. ?. Huntington is now trying
10 do, am / not exercising dominion over
temporal officers?
From the same work we read the following:
con the rights of the supreme pontiffs In
temporal matters there are four different opin-
ions, etc, First is uhtenable. Second is heret-
ical. Third advanced by Bellarmine and
others maintains that the Pope has jure divine
only spiritual, but no direct or immediate tenn
poral power; that, however by virtue of his
spiritual authority he is possessed of power in
direct indeed but nevertheless supreme in tenn
poral concerns OF Christian rulers and people
that he may therefore depoge Christian sover-
eigns should the spiritual welfare of nation
so demand. Thus matter OF fact Pope Inno-
cent ~ in pronounclng sentence of deposi ton
against Frederick II explicitly says that he de-
poses the Emperor auctoritate apostolicum ct
vi clayium.
"Fourth opinion holds that the sovereign
poptitf has full spiritual authority over princes
no less than over the faithful; that therefore
he has the right to teach and instruct them in
their respective duties to correct and infict
spiritual punishment upon both rulers and
peoples, but that jure divino he has no power
as asserted by Bellarmine, whether direct or
indirect, in the temporal affairs of Catholic
sovereigns or peoples.
"The third and fourth seem to differ chiefly
as to the deposing power of the Popes, but
agree in granting that the Roman pontiff has
an indirect power in temporal things; both
maybe lawfully held"
The Pope deposed Frederick IL by the au-
thority the Catholic church vested in him. A
catechism of Catholic doctrine, approved bv
the third plenary council of Baltimore and by
my sick friend, the Archbishop, and also by
Cardinal Gibbons, has some startling things in
it. Now L am going TO read for you these ques-
tions and answers on matrimony:
Catechism, page 40. Qmprimatur, Arch
bishop Riordan of San Francisco. Approved
Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore) Question