The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-12-13

CONVERSATION 1A.-(Cont1nued.)
Il could cite authorities without
number to the same effect, but authori-
ties are nothing to young America. I
will only add that the point is one that
a Catholic cannot deny; for the con-
trary is a condemned heresy."
Nephew Dick-But in proving that,
you do not prove that the pope may
even according to Catholic doctrine, de-
| prive temporal princes of their au-
thority.
Uncle Jack-I prove by it first, that
the authority conceded to the church by
the institution of Christ is not simply
! directive, but also coercive; that is, she
has authority to enforce obedience to
her DEGREES. l prove by it, in the sec
ond place, that, if temporal princes, as
to the morality of their public as we'll
as their private acts. come within her
ordinary spiritual jurisdiction, she has
with regard to them not merely a di-
receive, but also her ordinary coactive
or coercive power, and therefore may
| judge and punish them according to the
nature or magnitude of their offense.
| This is all | had to prove. If temporal
princes in the government of their es-
tate are exempted from the obligation
to conform to the divine and natural
! law. and therefore as TO the morality of
| their acts from the ordinary spiritual
jurisdiction of the church, it is for
those who so contend that they are to
prove it,.
Nephew Dick-But would not Cath
Ollie remind you that there is a distinc-
ton between the internal court and the
external court of the church, and that
these two acts are not coeXtensive in
their jurisdiction?"
Uncle Jackie must think me a
novice, indeed, if he thinks it neces-
sary to remind me of so we'll known a
distinction Of course she does not and
cannot take cognizance of private sins,
secret sins or internal acts which come
to her knowledge only in the confess
sional; but public sins, open and public
offenses, and especially such as by their
nature are public fall necessarily with
in the jurisdiction of the external court.
Such certainly are the public acts of
public power, which, if judged at all
as public acts, must be judged in foro
eXterno. Therefore the distinction,
| though very real and very important,
has no application to the case before
u.s.
Nephew Dick-But why, then, has
your friend, the editor of Brownson's
Quarterly Review, labored to prove
that the church may judge temporal
princes in their public acts, by proving
porals, at least so far as they are spir-
itually related?"
Uncle Jack-My friend, l presume, is
able to answer for himself, and 1 do
not pretend to know his secret reasons.
l suppose, however, that in his articles
on this subject his main design has
been to prove 5the extent and superior
ity, not in dignity only. but also in au-
thority, of the spiritual order, and the
l. lt,,,t = -nI e.
spiritual, and therefore to the church
as the representative of the spiritual on
earth. 1 suppose his real purpose has
been to refute that pernicious maxim,
so popular in our days, that Religion
has nothing to do with politics. by
showing that it has something and
great deal to do with them, because
all our acts are to be referred to a
spiritual end. If this be so, then poll
ties, as related to such end, as to their
morality, necessarily fall under the au-
thority of religion and within the or
binary spiritual jurisdiction of the
church. AS incidental to this main pur-
pose, not as an incident of still vaster
power, as some have interpreted it, he
treated the power of the church with
regard to temporal princes, and showed
that if the power of the church extend
ed to all temporals in that they are re-
lated to a spiritual end. it must extend
to princes in their public as we'll as in
their private acts, and that she must
have the same power of spiritual juriS-
diction over them that she has over pri-
vate acts, and that she must have the
same power of spiritual jurisdiction
over them that she has over private
persons, and therefore the same right
to judge and punish them, without
troubling himself with the irrelevant
question, from his point of view wheth-
er it was to be in foro inferno or in
foro externo. He did not fall into the
sad blunder of concluding, from the
fact that she takes cognizance of all
offenses against natural and posi-
tive law in foro externo, or of
the tribunal of pennance, that
she can take cognizance of all
in foro externo. From the fact that in
foro inferno she takes cognizance of all
offenses, he concluded that her spiritual
authority as judge extends 10 ALL and
from the fact that it extends to all,
he concludes that it extends to offenses
of temporal princes, on the principle
that the whole includes the parts, and
therefore that she had authority to
judge and punish them according to the
nature of their offenses, when their
offense was of public and external
character, and could be reached only
by public sentence, in foro externo
when they were not. The doctrine that
contend for is the very moderate doc
trine which is contained in the pas
sages l have read you from Suarez and
the cardinal archbishop of Rheims-a
doctrine which. is certainly lawful to
hold and in lawful manner to defend,
and which it is in my judgment abso-
lutely necessary to defend, if we would
defend in any satisfactory manner the
teachings of the great Catholic doctors
of past times and the uniform practice
of the church in all ages. There are
however, different points of view from
which the doctrine may be defended.
We may defend it with view of vim
dicating the church from the charge of
absorbing the state, as / am now doing
or it may be defended in opposition to
those who assert formal or virtual po-
litical atheism, as is apparently the !
case with the editor of Brownson's Re
view; that is, either as an explanation |
or an apologize defense of the claims
of the church in relation to the state, |
or as the assertion of the positive |
rights of the spiritual in relation to |
the temporal. The language used, and |
the form of the statements made, will, |
although the doctrine remains the |
SAAie, Noiy HOe q liIllS do Oiic VI thC |
other of these points of view is adopt |
ed by the writer, and those who write |
from the latter will almost invariably |
SEEM to those who are intent only on |
the former. to go too far. The one |
wishes to make the rights and pre- |
negatives of the church fully accepted !
by the children who seem to him to be |
in danger of forgetting them the other
wishes to persuade the enemies of the |
church that they may very safely |
tolerate her, notwithstanding the |
claims which in this respect have been |
mt forth for her The former would |