The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-07-12
BISHOP seANLAN IN THE SUN
DAY TRIBUNE.
Evil Thoughts, Their Malice-overt
Acts With and without Malice
Aforethought-Truth and Justice
Preserves Liberty of Thought.
THOU SHALT NOT covET THY
NEIGHBoRs GOODS"

I
] ne pleases, save as against God and
ms rights; that is to say, all rights, for
| there is no real right that is not his
Every act of injustice or wrong, by
/ Whomsoever or against whomsoever
done, is such, simply because it is an
act injurious to God. violation of his
rights.
But it may be asked what evil CAM
there be in d mere thought, or, how
can men by d simple desire do an ir1=
jury to God or his neighbor? Why,
there is where the real evil or sin is.
me thought is father to the deed.
From the abundance of the heart the
mouth speaketh." All evil deeds are
out the expression and execution of the
plans deliberately thought over, drawn
and determined upon by the mind. A
deliberate thought is human act,
ana, IL an unlawful act, is just as bad
and punishable in many cases as if it
was expressed In word or action, for
the formal morality, that is, the right
or wrong of an action, depends on the
thought that originated, encouraged
and executed it. IF thy eye be single,
thy whole body shall be lightsome, and
II thy eye be evil thy whole body shall
be darksome."
This is the teaching of reason and
common sense. Should our neighbor
lnJure us in person or property, what
should we do in order to act justly and
reasonably toward him? We should go
back of his act, and. If possible, into
his very mind, to ascertain whether or
not he deliberately thought and in
tended to do us an injury. If we find
that he did not so think and intend,
how freely, and reasonably, too, do we
forgive him. But, on the contrary, If
We discover that he had such
thought and intention, how different,
naturally and justly, we should feel
and act toward him! But why this dit
terence of feeling and action on our
part? Is not the action with its cir
cumstances materially the same, and
the injury done us substantially the
same? The reason is that in one case
he had deliberate thought of injuring
US, While in the other he had no such
thought. In one case he is guilty and
punishable because he had a certain
thought, and in the other heais limo
cent and unpunishable because he had
no such thought. Now, guilt and pun
lshment suppose the violation of some
law, and, therefore, reason itself rec
ognizes a law forbidding deliberate
thoughts against the rights of God and
our neighbor.
This law is also recognized and acted
upon by all civilizeat and organized
communities, states and governments.
Let us suppose that two men have
committed externally the same kind of
deed, namely, the murder. respect
lively of one of their fellow beings.
Both are tried before the same Judge
or jury. One is found guilty and is
executed. while the other is declared
innocent and undeserving of punish
mef1t. Why this seemingly contradic-
tory verdict? Did not each commit the
same deed the killing of a human be-
ing? The reason is that In one case
1t is proven that the man deliberately
thought and intended the killing,
whereas, in the other it is proven that
there was no such deliberate thought
and intention. In one case, therefore,
a law was violated and real wrong
DONE while in the other there was no
violation of law and no real moral
evil committed. Would it not appear.
then, that the nature and purport of
the thought is the chief. if not the
sole, criterion of guilt or innocence;
and that all organized communities
punish, not deeds. so much as thoughts
and intentions? Would it not also ap-
pear that thought so far from hav-
ing no evil or sin in it, is, on the con-
trary, the real source and efficient
cause of all the evils and woeful TRACE
dies of human life?
Since, therefore, deliberate thoughts
and desires injurious to the rights of
others are, forbidden byJreason and So
clety, we should not be surprised that
they are also prohibited by God. the
great legislator who sees the inmost
recesses of the human heart. Hence
one of his great commandments is
Thou shalt not covet,,--that is, desire
or think of unjustly possessing-'thy
neighbours goods We are told everyJ
where in the Bible that to deliberately
thlnk evil, is to do evil; to will lust is
to be guilty of lust and that we must
on the day of reckoning give an ac-
count of alk our thoughts. words and
actions Christ himself condemned the
Scribes and Pharisees of his time be-
cause they thought evil in their
hearts, and he declared that it. is only
the clean of heart can see God" No
one, therefore, has any moral right or
liberty to think injuriously to the rights
of God, for there can be no right to
think injuriously even to ourselves, for
a deliberate thought against ourselves
is also such against God, whose we are
God wills and has a right that we
should not so think and, therefore.
set our wills against his will. Hence
suicide is violation of Gods right be-
cause destruction of his child. For
the same reason we have no moral
right or liberty to entertain deliberate
thoughts injurious to our neighbor, for
he belongs to God: and to injure him
to injure God in his property. The real
rights of man and the rights of God
are IDENTICAL a fact which renders
those of our neighbor all the more
sacred and inviolable
Neither can we deliberately entertain
or encourage thoughts against society,
the state or legitimately constituted
government, for the rights of govern
ment so constituted are simply Gods
rights. A real right or legitimate power
wherever found and by whomsoever
possessed and exercised belongs to God.
There is no power but from God"
says st. Paul, land. therefore, whoever
resisteth the laws and ordinances of
the state resisteth God himself" That
moral freedom, therefore, that allows
us the full exercise of all our faculties
within the limits of right. truth and
justice is all the liberty that any ra-
tional being admitting God can be
should claim. / say, admitting God,
for if there is no God there is no moral
law, because no legislator. Surely man
should be satisfied with such right and
liberty, and should not consider himself
coerced or limited in his actions, be-
cause he cannot think, speak or act
unjustly and injuriously to others, and
is not permitted to covet-to desire I'M
justly--his neighbor's goods.
-<o-
VATICAN AGAINST
DIVORCED WOMAN