The San Francisco call., 1896-03-06

However, D. Ross, with true Scotch uncon-
scIousness OF the ludicrous, goes on with ms
alleged argument:
But to return to the quotation from ecclesiastical
law. BY what right was the deposng power ex-
ertcd by the sovereign pontfs?" That is ques-
ticai law, and is the heading In other words, the
question is simply this The Catholic church asks
by what right should the Pope OF Rome tell
Grover Cleveland to step down and ont of the
White House at Washington BY what right
the deposing power of any king exercised by the
Pope of Rome? That is what l would like to
know: BY what right? This is the answer:
ers'' Now you Know Father Yorke would quote
one or these opinions and i would quote the
ether and we would both be right. The most slip
perry business ever had hing do with is the
business of sliding around among these books,
have for the last three months But 1t says:
The one holds that it was exercised merely by
tue OF the Jus publicum'-that means the pubic
right the public defense would call it-of the
medieval ages. The other that the deposing power
as exercised by Gregory V III and the other Pom
the indirect power of the Pope In temporal things
This opinion is thus expressed in our article on
Gregory VII published in Brownsons Quarterly
Review, pril, 1875 The power itself a. e., OF
deposing Princes) in radice hold is inherent in
the Papacy, the power in action or its exercise de-
pends on external circumstances
In other words, if you can kick him off the
throne then it is of right to do it, but if you
cannot you had better let him alone. But this is
significant. BY what right was the deposing power
exercised by the sovereign Pontiffs of Rome? That
question is taken from the canon law of the Catno
lie church. BY what right did the Popes turn
Kings off their thrones? BY what right did the
Popes OF Rome overturn Governments? BY what
right did the Roman Catholic church depose SOW
ereigns? We are told that he did it because the
right was inherent in the papacy. My friends. If
the right Is inherent in the Catholic church to turn
Presidents Kings from their thrones seats is
1t not true that the Catholic church teaches that it
ought to have dominion over temporal affairs?
And the Catholic church teaches that the right
to depose sovereigns, the right to overurn Govern
ments, is Inherent in the papacy, and yet am
asked and defied to find in Catholic publications
any pyoof that the Catholic church teaches that it
ought TO have dominion over temporal affairs. The
extract Just read is taken from volume /, page
2oS, of the Ecclesiastical Law.
now read from the same volume, page 269:
lE'Pope Plus TX, in of his discourses, says
that the right of deposing princes has nothing to
do with the pontifica infaibitv, neither does it
flow from the infaliblity, but from the authority
ofthe Pontiff. OF course Catholic is bound, not
only by what the Pope defines cathedra, but
also TO accept and obey what he otherwise COM
mands"
know of nothing more dishonest more con-
sciously unfair than the above excerpt. Ross
informs his audience that the Pope has the
right to depose Cleveland, or to depose any
other ruler and he informs them that Cath
olics claim that such right is inherent in the
Papacy.
| Yet the very opening sentence of the para
| graph showed that the author did not recog-
niZe the "deposing power" as having any eX-
| istence now. He says, This question is at
present of little consequence" 1t is histori-
cal question merely, and deals with the power
| exercised in the middle ages.
| Again, Ross makes 1t appear as II the church
| had the right to depose Grover Cleveland, yet
| this very same opening sentence INFORMED him
| that even in the middle ages the deposing
/ power could be exercised only on Princes
| ''who are Catholics, not only as individuals
| but as rulers; in other words, only those
| Princes who are at the head OF Catholic ma
| tions. where the Catholic religion is the only
| religion recognized by law"
| Moreover he goes on strumming the same
! old string, the right is inherent in the Papacy,
the Pope claims the rig hit of deposing the Pres
! ident OF the United States, yet this absolutely
| honest man, d. Ross, had before his eyes this
sentence on page 259: "WHILE THEREFORE IN
FORMER TINES THE EXERCISE OF THE DEPosING
! POWER WAS LEGITIMATE, IT WOULD NOT BE LEGITI-
MATE AT PRESENT.
| do not think, Mr.. Editor that any other
demonstration OF ID. Ross's dishonesty is
needed. No wonder he still refuses to submit
his authorities to three unbiased non-Catholic
lawyers. No wonder he chose. sherman, man
| purblind with passion, TO be his judge. Judas
1scariot would deal gently with the slips OF
Ananias.
THE INHERENT RIGHT.
But what is meant by the statement that the
| deposing power is inherent in the papacy?
Let us remember that all agree that the jus
Dublicum OF medieval Europe recogn lied this
power in the Pope. Jus publicum does not
mean, as our Latin scholar ID. Ross says. public
defense, but it means practically the constitu-
tion of Christian Europe. Just as the federated
States of this Union recognize the Supreme
Court as court OF last resort, so the Christian
States OF Europe recognized the Pope as su-
preIne court.
Now the question arises why did they so rec
ogniZe him? We recognize the Supreme Court
because the Supreme Court has been created
for that purpose. Why did the European
powers recognize the Pope as their civil SUI
preme court since he had been created for
other purposes?
The answer is given in the quotation: sin
radice the power is inherent in the Papacy."
d. Ross quickly drops sin radice" and does
not seem to know whether it means house rent
or radishes. "In radice" means ''in the root"
and the whole expression signifies that the de-
| nNv,fa Dc 1x-tl tl1,.
tions had its root in the very idea of the
Papacy. That is to say, there is something in
| the very nature of the Papacy which would
suggest to people in the middle ages, who were
anxious TO eonstitu te Supreme Court, to Sc
| lect the Pope for that office.
What, therefore, is that power in the Papacy
which the nations of medieval Europe consid-
cred as good reason for making the Pope their
arbitrator? 1t is known as the power of the
keys The Pope was supreme in spiritual mat
ters. He was the head of the universal re-
| ligion; therefore when the European states
wished to erect a supreme court they naturally
looked to the Pope. They did this the more
readily thatthe questions they wished to bring
before this court were really religious ques-
tions namely, the moral fitness of their rulers.
Hence it is SAID that at the root of this depos-
| ing power lay something which is inherent in
the Papacy, or that the germ of the deposiAg
| power, as IL existed in the middle ages, was to
| be found in the very idea of a Supreme Pontfff.
How, dishonest 1t is to twist these words
| teaches that he ought to have that power
againl D. Ross quotes from Plus TX to sus-
tain his opinion, but let me finish the whole
quotation. / have already used it in my reply
| to DR.. Wendte, but it extinguishes the later as
well as the earlier fraud:
This right of deposing princes without doubt has
been exercised by the supreme pontiffs from time
to time in extreme cases. but it has nothing to do
with the pontifica inallibility, neither does it
flow from the infaliblty but from the authority
OF the Pontf.
Moreover, the exercise Of this right in those
ages of faith which respected in the Pope that
which he is. that is to say, the supreme Judge OF
christendom. and recognized the benefit his tri-
bunal in the great contentious of peoples and of
sovereigns, was freely extended by aid of public
jurisprudence and the common consent Of nations
to the gravest interests OF states and Of their
rulers.
But altogether different the conditions of the
present time from the condition of those ages, and
malice alone can confound things so diverse--that
is say, the infallible Judgment in respect to
the Popes exercised in virtue of heir authority
when the common good demanded it. They now
better than We and everybody can discern the rea-
son why such absurd confusion of ideas Is
stirred up at this time and why Hypothetical
paraded of which no man thinks. 1t is be-
cause every pretext, even the most frivolous and
farhest from the truth. is eagerly caught at, pro-
vided it be of q kind to give us annoyance and to
excite civil rulers against the church.
To sum up then the deposing power of the
Pope was right given him in the middes
ages. That deposing power no longer exists.
In fact, its exercise would not be legitimate
now yet D. Ross proclaims it to the world as