The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1901-06-08
The Veteran Irishman Apparently Has the
Best of Father Moriarty in
the Discussion.
The Elmira Priest Finds Worthy Foeman
in the Catholic Editor of
Chippewa Falls.

From an article in the Irish Stand
ard of May % we learn that the au-
thenticity Of Pope Adrian's bull, be-
slowing the kingdom Of Ireland upon
King Henry ii. of England is again
under discussion, this time between
two Protestants of Elmira, N. Y, and
a Catholic priest named ]. ]. Moriarty
Of the same place. says Judge Cough
in the Chippewa Falls Sentinel. 1t is
not pleasant to find clergymcn, cspc-
cially Irish clergymen, willing to boil
stcr up fa1sehood in order to conceal
the truth. Yet this is what is done
by those who attempt to prove the
bull Of Pope Adrian forgery, and
Father Morlarty is no exception. He
jumps into the polemical arena with
the following question: WAS the al
legged bull Of Pope Adrian to Henry
Plantagcnet genuine? l say it was
spurious and rank forgery" And
then he goes on to argue the PROPOSE
ton in the usual dogmatic style thus:
Here are two matchlcss arrogant
aliens, citizens of Elmira, who pre-
sumo to know more about Irish ana
church history than all the literary
and historical geniuses of Ireland,
from ancient to modern times. What
do you Ghe public, we suppose) think
of such audacity?"
We'll, we think the aulacity is with
his reverence, and that bluster and
rant upon grave question proves
nothing. The reverend gentleman next
accuses his opponents Of quoting from
such writer's as DR.. Lingard, John OF
Salisbury, etc. DR.. Llngard was q
good Catholic historian, and John OF
Salisbury was the English Catholic
bishop who carried the bull Of Pope
Adrian into Ireland and presented II
to the Irish clergy and mobiles Of thai
country, where it was publicly read
together with the bull Of Pope Alex
ander, whose legate, Cardinal Vivian
was there present. Does Father Mo
riarty charge DR.. Lingard with falsify
ing history? Does he charge the bish
op Of Salisbury with being party tt
"King Henry's fraud" in carrying two
forged bulls into Ireland and reading
them before concourse Of Irisl
clergy? Does he charge Cardinal Wv
ian, Pope Alexander's delegate, will
sitting by and listening to and approx
mig forged bull alleged to be ISSUED
by his master? Lastly, does this Ell
mira clergyman charge the Irish bish
ops, archbishops, abbots, and the no
bility Of that kingdom with such ig
norance and stupidity Us that they
could not discern spurious bull
forged by Henry from true bull is
sued by Pope Alexander? Yet he mus
charge and prove all these things tt
make good his position, for the bull Of
Alexander refers to and embodies the
bull Of Adrian, and both or none must
be proved to be forged and spurious
before either can. be attacked by sur
misses of MorIarty. But to uphold his
position he quotes from MacGoeghe.
gan:
"The English, having in the twelfth
century put an end to the Irish mon
archy, and wishing to give color of JUS
tice to their usurpation, and to the
tyranny which they exercised against
the inhabitants Of the country, have
without any other title than a fictitious
bull Of Pope Adrian" etc.
Here Rev. Father Norlarty breaks
off without closing the sentence, and
asks us to believe from what he quotes
that "Pope Adrian's bull was for.
gerry" The passage he cites will be
found on page 1S Of Sadlier's edition
Of the work. The word Fictitious" is
evidently mistranslation for, in the
very next paragraph on the same
page, MacGoeghegan says:
circumstances required that they
] should make the Irish people barbar.