The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1903-01-03


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 a Denver clergyman Apos-
tie Hyrum NJ Smith said:
Il was in st. Ignatius ehurch IN san
Francisco short time ago ana tne
priest offered to absolve any from SIN,
grant them Indulgence of 100 days upon
the payment of certain contribution.
Think OF it, 100 days to do anythlns
they wanted! Commit any evil they Ielt
like. and they would be absolVed py the
priest God never gave Jesus Such au-
thority. More license than he gave to the
angels. Yet there was man seillnS
licenses to commit evil. NO man or COM
bination of men ever had such authority,
When men usurp such authority they
overstep every commandment given to
God. They prey on the ignorance ana
to commit evil. Woe, woe unto such as
these"
No such words ever dropped from the
lips of priest in st. Ignatlus cnurcn' san
Francisco. Whatever other charges may
be trumped. up against the Jes4itS, no
one accuses them OF ignorance of Catnohc
faith. The SMALLEST child IN the SUNDAY
school. who Is just beginning to learn MS
catechism. could tell that an indulgence
does not mean u license to commit any
evil they feel like" and Apostle Smith
in making that charge was guilty of the
grossest injustice and calumny against
to do anything they wanted; Commit any
evil they felt like, and they would be
absolved by the priest. Yes. think OF
an apostle making such a charge from
the pulpit in this enlightened age he
would not take the trouble to investigate
before publicly announcing to his congre-
CATION that Catholic priest, jesuit,
too was selling licenses to commit
evil and ascertain if such was Catholic
doctrine. 1t is certain that the apostle
never read any Catholic work explaining
the meaning and extent OF lnduIsenceS'
nor has he ever discussed the subject with
any member of the Catholic church. 1t
is equally certain that he read authors
whose sole aim was, not only to dlstort
and Tnisrepresent Catholic doctrine, but
to give as Catholic doctrine what the
church abhors and condemns. "a license
TO commit sin God never gave to Jesus,
because he could rot Does Apostle smith
suppose that the Jesuit father. preaching
from the pulpit at st. Ignatius church III
San Francisco, claimed for himself what
God would not do? Has it ever occurred
to the preacher that the old church which
mas, for twenty centuries. preached pur-
1ty, honesty, charity, peace and good VIII
TO all men, would claim power and au-
thority which her teaching specifies GOO,
infinite in all his attributes, is incapable
OF exercising, namely, to permit or license
man TO sin? II, supposing the Impossible,
the Jesuit father referred to had told his
congregation what the apostle accuses
him OF, he would never appear in Catho-
lie pulpit again. The falsehood attributed
TO the priest is SO glazing that not only
Catholics but very many of Mr.. Smiths
coreligionists know that it was false;
that no Catholic ever claimed authority
TO license man to do evil. He, speaks OF
ignorance and superstition. Ask the most
illiterate Catholic, or the little boy or
girl in their teens if their priest could
license them, i. e., give them permission,
much less be guilty of an impure act,
Dear false witness against their nelgn-
Dor, desecrate the Sabbath be disobedi-
ent to their parents. or kill fellow being
these as you would from a Newman,
Manning or Gibbons, and that answer
would be No What about the ubiuui-
toUs reporters of the San Francisco daily
papers remaining silent about the Jesuit
who permitted all the Catholics of San
Francisco to rob, kill and carouse for 100
dayS-'to do anything they wanted upon
the payment of certain contribution?
This was certainly a menace to the re-
public, and all noisy preachers must be
sleeping when the Jesuit priest set forth
his extraordinary claims If the Jesuit
again supposing the impossible. said what
the aDostle 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
penltentlary where he rightfully be-
longed: No anarchist could preach a
more reasonable doctrine against his
country and its citizens than that attrib-
uted by Apostle Smith to the Jesuit father
at st, lngatius church. Think of ft-1O0
days to do anything they wanted. Com
NIT any evil they felt like, and they
would be absoived by the priest" All this
occurred in San Francisco, which is az
most within speaking distance of Salt
Lake. AS a rule. preachers, when they
have something Sensa tional to say against
the teaching of the Catholic church go
away a great distance either in time or
space. They are not so clumsy as to
make grave charges near home or since
the lapse of the middle ages Their cal
umnies are buried in the musty rubbish
or 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 what he heard. Just think" of
what he heard. A priest told the eongre-
cation that he would grant them in
lelgenee OF 100 days upon the payment
lays to do anything they wanted-commit
any evil they felt like and they would
De absolyed by the priest" That priest
s not only remarkable, but an extraor-
and the curitor has written to his su-
Derior to ask if he made this extraor-
llnary claim; also for his credentials to
his claim, He. did not get it from the
give what she has not. God never gave
Jesus such authority Certainly not.
Jesus had power to forgive sins and ex-
eTcised that power, but he could give no
me permission to offend his heavenly
Father. More license than he gave to
he angels. Very true. and the Jesuit
PRIEST whom the apostle heard giving this
not in Mexico. South America
'r the Philippines, but in San Francisco
and that "a short time ago." is invested
With greater power than the church he
'epresents, greater than angels. greater
nan Jesus. yes, and according to Cath |
'lc teaching, greater than the Almighty
md eternal God possesses, who could not |,
)ermit his children to do evil. and has |
aid that evil should never be done that !
rood may come" There may be erratic
oolish and bad priests, but no one will |
suspect a Jesuit, noted for their shreWd- |
less and learning, of contravening Cath |
lie doctrine, or telling their congregation |
n a cit! like San Francisco that 'he !
would grant them indulgence of 100 days !
lpon the payment of certain contribu- |
ion Yes. think of it--1O9 DAYS to do |
nything they wanted, commit any evil |
hey felt like, and they would be alb !
Owed by the priest A worse charge |
ould not be made against Herr Most !
nd until we receive an answer 70 "o onr
COMMUNICATION to the superior of the |
esuits in San Francisco we cannot be- |
leve that the Jesuit ever uttered the
words attributed to him
For the apostles enlightenment the (
vriter will conclude by saying that in /
ulgence means the very reverse of what
e supposes it to be- To gain an fndlIlg |
nee. one must1be free from sin and have !
esolved to sin no more 1t does not re- /
er to the guilt of sin at all. but IN
anonical penances imposed oy the
hurch on sinners in the early ages of the
hurch. No Catholic ever thought that
n indulgence could remit sin, much less
cense one to sin. To the Catholic mind !
n INDULGENCE is on q par with the par !
oning power of the governor of the
tate. who can shorten the term of
ulprit's imprisonment or forgive him en-
rely. All the money in San Francisco.
oupled with all the power claimed bv
ne church. to which might be added ali
he indulgences ever granted, could NOT
btain for sinner the forgiveness of |
ne mortal sin, if the sinner was not sim
erely sorry and resolved never to be