The San Francisco call., 1896-01-23
and salutary to religious as well as civil inter

ests.
For you we'll know venerable brethren,
that at this time not few are found, who, ap.-
plying to civil society the impious and absurd
prlhclple OF naturalism, as they call 1t, dare TO
teach. that the best interests of public society
ana civil progress absolutely require that
human society be constituted and governed
without any regard to religion, as though re-
digion qua not exist or at least without any
discrimination between the true religion and
the false Ones And they do not hesitate,
against the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, of
the In church, and OF the holy fathers, to assert
mat that condition of society is the best in
winch the civil power does not recognize the
oDllgatlon TO coerce by enacted penalties the
saoiatlon OF the Catholic religion, except SO tar
as the public peace may require it Proceeding
from this totally false idea of social Govern
ment they do not fear to foster that erro-
neous @ opinion most, fatal to the Cath
oIlc church and to the salvation of souls,
winch was designated by our predecessor,
dregory XVI, OF recent memory, as insane
nonsense, namely, that liberty of conscience
ana worship is the personal right of every man,
Whlch ought to be proclaimed by law and as
serted IN every rightly constituted society; and
that eltlzens have an inherent right to the
complete liberty, which must not be restrained
py any ecclesiastical or civil authority, OF
openly and publicly manifesting and declaring
any OF their thoughts whatever, either in
speech, or In print. or in any other manner
But. while they have the temerity to affirm this,
they do not think and consider that they are
preaching the liberty of perdition and that, If
suaslons, there can never be wanting men who
dare to resist the truth and to put faith in the
!oquac1ty OF human wisdom, whereas we know
from the very nstitution of our Lord JesuS
Christ, how faith and Christian wisdom must
avoid this most hurtful vanity"
In view of what l have said, my original
question is in order-can q man be a loyal,
consistent Catholic and good citizen? Father
1orke eVadeS this question. To answer in
frank direct manner would impale him on the
horns OF a dilemma; for if he says, ~ would
obey the laws of my country against the
DEGREES of my Pope, - he is a traitor to his &C.
to the supreme Pontiff," he stands discredited
as an American citizen. Hence he seeks to
evade the issue, to entangle men in a new dis
cusSlon about my own course If l were in
Armenia! But we are not in Armenia. We
are in the United States. Again there is no
just parallel between the two cases, as l could
easily show. Let Father Yorke answer for him.
self.
As for my reference to Cardinal Newman,
rather Yorke's contention is not with me, but
with Gladstone. Says the latter (''VaIicanism,"
p. 29): Statesmen of the future, recollect the
words, and recollect from whom they came;
from the man who by his genius, piety and
learning towers above all the eminences of the
Anglo-Papal communion. The lesson received
is this: Although pledges were given, al
though their validity was firmly and even pas
sionately asserted, although the subjeet-maJter
was one of civil allegiance, mo pledge from
Catholics was OF any value to which Rome was
not party Up. 14)."
With this conclude this long, but, trust,
not Ineffective reply,
CHARLES w. WENDTE,
Minister Unitarian Church.