The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-12-31
COMMUNICATED.
Father Kiely Replies.

{
er. who was arraigning Christians for
their violation OF the commandments. did
precisely what he condemned others OF DO
ing by bearing false testimony against
his neighbors, 1t is incredible that a
Jesuit priest could be SO ignorant OF
Catholic faith as TO say he would give
a license to sin for leo days on payment
/ of q certain fee" Any priest, using the
language attributed to the Jesuit father
in San Francisco. would be guilty OF
heresy- As reported IN morning paper
we give the entire charge. After paying
his respects to Denver clergyman Apos-
tie Hyrum ii Smith said.
= was in St Ignatius church in San
Francisco a short time ago and the
priest offered to absOive any from sin,
grant them Indulgence of 100 days upon
the payment Of certain Contribution
Think of Il, leo days to DO anything
( they wanted, Commit any evil they felt
( Ike. and they would be abSclVed by the
priest. God never gave Jesus such au-
thority. More license than be gave TO the
angels Yet there was a man selling
I licenses to commit evil No man or COM
bination Of men ever had such authority.
I When men usurp such authority they
overstep every commandment given to
GOD They prey on the Ignorance ana
sGperstitions OF men and license them
these"
No such words ever dropped from the
/ lips of a priest IN st. IgnatiuS church, san
/ Francisco. Whatever other charges may
be trumped up against the Jesuits. no
one accuses them OF ignorance OF Cathohc
faith. The smallest child in the Sunday
/ school, who is Just beginning to learn his
catechism. could tell that an indulgence
does not mean a license to commit any
/ evil they feel like. and Apostle Smith
! in making that charge was guilty OF the
/ grossest injustice and calumny against
! 500. GOO COO Catholics. Think Of it, 100 days
/ to do anything they wanted Commit any
evil they felt like, and they would be
/ absoived by the priest" Yes. think of
an apostle making such a charge from
i the pulpit in this enlightened age lie
would not take the trouble to investigate
/ before publicly announcing 10 his congre-
cation that a Catholic priest, Jesuit,
/ too, was selling licenses TO commit
/ evil" and ascertain if such was Catholic
/ doctrine. II is certain that the apostle
, the meaning and extent of indulgences,
4 nor has he ever discussed the subject with
I any member of the Catholic church 1t
| is equally certain that he read authors
! whose sole aim was. not only to distort
and misreDreSent C2tholic doctrine, but
/ to give as CatholicN doctrine what the
| church abhors and condemns. "A license
to commit sin God never gave to Jesus, =
because no could not. Does Apostle smith
suppose that the Jesuit father preaching
from the pulpit at 81 Isnatius church Ia
San Franc isco, claimed for himself what
God would not do? Has it ever occurred
TO the preacher that the old church which
has, for twenty centuries. preached pur-
! ity, honesty, charity, peace and good VIII
TO all men, would claim a power and aU-
thority which her teaching specifies COG,
infinite in all his attributes, is incapable
of exercising, namely, to permit or license
man 20 sin? If, sUpposing the Impossible
the Jesuit father referred to had told his
congregation what the apostle accuses
him Of. he would never appear in q. CatnO-
lie pulpit again. The falsehood attributed
10 the priest is so glazing that not only
| Catholics but very many OF Mr. Smith 5
cOreligionists know that it was false;
/ that no Catholic ever claimed authority
10 license man TO DO EVIL. He speaks OF
ignorance and superstition. ASK the most
| lliterate Catholic, or the little boy or
1 girl in their teens If their priest could
1 or MOI
to lie. or steal, indulge an impure thought,
| much less be guilty of an impure act,
pear raise witness agalnst thelr helgn-
Dor, desecrate the Sabbath, be OisObedl-
ent TO their parents, or kill . fellow being
and you Will gel the same answer from
these as you would from a Newman,
/ Manning or Gibbons, and that answer
| would be NO. What about the ubiQul-
tOlfS reporters of the San Francisco daily
/ papers remaining silent apout the JeSult
who permitted all the Catholics of San
| Francisco TO rob. kill and carouse for l0J
I dayS-'tO do anything they wanted upon
| the payment of a certain contribution
| THIS was certainly a menace to the re-
public, and all noisy preachers must be
sleeping when the Jesuit priest set forth
again supposfng the Impossible. said what
1 the apostle attributes to him, it was the
/ duty of the latter TO report the priest TO
( the authorities. place him under arrest
| and when convicted send him to the
penitentiary, where he righttully be-
| lOnged. No anarchist could preach a
uOEG IEeaSO0dDiC doctrine against MS
| country and its citizens Than that attrib-
uted by Apostle Smith to the Jesuit father
| at st. InSatiuS church. Think of ft-10i
| days to do anything they wanted Com
/ would be absolved by the priest" All this
occurred in San Francisco. which is al
most within speaking distance of Salt
Lake As a rule. preachers, when they
have something sensational to say against
the teaching of the Catholic church, go
away a great distance either in time OF
I Of p1Fr RI
make grave charges near home or since
| the lapse of the middle ages Their cal
umnies are buried in the musty rubbish
OF the past or far from home SO they
are Indifferent about their being verified
or not. What Apostle Smith vouches for
| happened "a short time ago." and as he
tells rhat he heard. lust think" OF
what he heard. A priest told the congre-
cation that ''he would grant them in
diligence Of 100 days upon the payment
of a certain contribution. One hundred
days to do anything they wanted-commii
any evil they felt like and they would
be abSOlVed by the priest" That priest
is not only remarkable, but an extraOr-
binary man in the eyes of all Catholics
and the curitor has written to his su-
periOr to ask if he made this eXtraor-
binary claim; also for his credentials tC
this claim. He did not get it from the
Catholic church. because she could MOI
Jesus such authority" Certainly not
Jesus had power to forgive sins and ex-
ercised that power, but he could give nj
one perm ssicn TO offend his heavenly
4 Father More license than he gave tt
the angels Very true. and the Jesuit
priest whom the apostle heard giving thii
permission. not in Mexico. South America
or the Philippines. but in San Francisco
! and that "a short time ago." is invested
with greater power than the church h'
represents. greater than angels. greater
than Jesus, yes. and according to Cath
/ Ole teaching. greater than the Almighty
and eternal God possesses, who could no
permit his children to do evil. and hal
| said that evil should never be done tina
| good may come" There may be errat!e
foolish and bad priests. but no one vii
suspect a Jesuit. noted for their shrewd
: Ole doctrine. or telling their congregation
in a city like San Francisco that III
would grant them indulgence of 100 day
| upon the payment OF a certain contribu
! ton" Yes. think Of it-lC0 days to d.
anything they wanted commit any evi
they felt ike, and they would be alb
/ solved by the priest A worse charg
could not be made against Herr Most
and until we receive an answer TO GU
communication TO the superior of tn
Jesuits in San Francisco we cannot be
| lieVe that the Jesuit ever uttered tn
words attributed to hin
For the apostles enlightenment tn
writer viii conclude by saying that in
diligence means the very reverse of VIVA
he suppOses it to be. To gain an indulg
ence one must be free from sin and flaY
resolved to sin no more. Il does not re
fer to the guilt of sin at ALL but I
canonical penances imposed BY til
, ! church on sinners in the early ages of tn
church. No Catholic ever thought tha
an indulgence could remit sin. much les
license one to sin To the Catholic min
an Indulgence is on a oar with the 9ST