The sun., 1903-07-14
Mr. Goodwin Smith and Pope Plus VII

Mr. GOltIwln Smith and Pope Plus VII
To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN-Sir: II ia
pleasant to see Mr.. Goodwin Smith so deeply
interested In the welfare of the Catholic
Church and in the promotion of Christian
morals that he is not satisfied either with tho
ordinary or the extraordinary courage NJ
Pope Plus VII. in defending the sanctity OF
Christian marriage MIR Smith does not
deny that by refusing TO annul the marriage
of an American lady Mt the dctation OF Ma
poeon the Pontiff showed courage Nor
does Mr.. Smith deny that when he excorn-
municated the Emperor at the height OF his
power, when all Europe. including England
shivered in dread OF the great conqueror, the
Pontiff showed extraordinary courage Then
it was that the Pontiff. physically weak and
almost helpless. inflicted on the mighty Elm.
peror the severest penalty known to the
Church; for communication cut of from
the body of the faithful and deprived of the aid
countenance and sympathy of every loyal
Catholic tho greatest monarch in Europe
Was not this act of the Pope "Hildebrandic"?
Napoleon's friends thought SO De VI neval
speaking of the Pope and his conduct before
the communication. SAYS: THE influence
Of our enemies. especially Of the English
dominated Rome The Pope was obsti-
the ideas of the Gregorys" tHildebrand was
Gregory VIII "and Bonifaces, using style
which was no longer Of this century" t-Me
moires." Volume H., page 260)
BY Protestant England. Mr.. Smith should
remember, no Pope was ever so much ad-
mired as Plus VII, whose act Of courage
was worth TO the all-powerfu Emperors
enemies an army OF million men. Napoleon
knew this and wreaked his ven geance on the
PontiY by dra gging him from Rome and i'm.
prisoning him at Savona where. as Mr. Smith
admits he was held in "duress" during the
Fmperor's proceedings at Vienna TO prove
that he had never been vadly married 10
Josephine
Yet these acts Of courage do not satisfy
MIR Smith. who has a very high ideal OF what
he sonorously but obscurely calls the Pom
tihcate OF Morals"
Speaking Of the marriage OF Napoleon to
Maria Louisa, Mr. Smith says: 1T was not
Josephine only that was wronged by the
imperial bigamy: it wds the Church at large
But where was the imperial bigamy"? I'm
perial trickery there was. but where was the
bigamy? Mr.. Smith would find 1t very diff
cult to prove that Napoleon was ever validly
married Napoleon sent to the Curia at Vienna
mot the "conclave word Improperly used
by Mr. Smith. the documents and statements
sworn to by Cardinal Fesch and three other
witnesses. and attested also under oath bv
Count Otto. the French Ambassador-s
Calvinist- documents and statements
satisfied the Curia that Napoleon had never
given a true consent In the religious mar
ria ge OF Josephine The scholar can con-
suit Helfert tMaria Louisa" Wien, 1879. a
classic authority on this special part OF the
subject. To all this testimony for the plain
tiff no answer was made What was the
Vienna Curia to do? What could an English
or an American court do under the circum
stances? The Curia decided according to the
unquestioned testimony, in favor OF Napo-
Icons contention that his marriage to Jo-
sephne was invalid. The decision satisfied
the conscience Of the Emperor Francis and
of his daughter, Maria Louisa, who ilnme;;
diately married Napoleon What should
seems to think that it would have been Hide
brandic" for him then to excornmnnicate
Napoleon again, But this would have been
doctrines Of the Church were known to all
the agents OF the Vienna Curia and the ey-
communication Of Napoleon was notorious
communicated Maria Louisa? No, because
she was in good faith and consequently not
criminal Only crime. justifies so severe
penalty as X, eXcommnnlcatiIon l. should me
els? No because he, too. considered the CO
csion Of the Curia valid one The ta't
that the matrimonial court organized by
Cardinal Fesch at Paris to try the validity
of Napoleon's marriage to Josephine lackei
jurisdiction was known only to experts IN
canon law The, people at large saw every,
we're not scandaized by the divorce of Jo'
sephine or by the marriage of Maria Louisa.
The Pore, therefore if IN n n MS prison pmat
ter was wise in refraining from pro,
no,incing a new public Censure which could
add nothing to Napoleon's punishment, but
would punish tho innocent osd IT, woman, woman, MaF''
Mr. Smith finds my defence OF Plus canon.
cal while he calls his own criticism moral
Why this aantithesls between bet acanonica
defence. Does Mr.. Smith mean that a leGa
defence cannot be moral" or what does he
mean! The question OF Napoleon's mar,
riages and divorces is a canonico historiCnI
one, and no one is competent TO treat IL who
does not know the law as well as the facts IN
the case give the law and the facts. II IS
MIR Smith who is AZ the bar. But let us come
back to Mr. Smiths history,
He twice repeats the assertion that the
ecclesiastical marriage of Josephine was
celebrated at the special instance of the
The Pope, being neither Omniscient nor in
spired knew. nothing of Josephine's private
affairs until she reported them to hln at Paris;
Knowing that her civil marriage was null and
void by the canon law IN France, she be
sought the Pope to have her marriage made
valid in the eyes OF the Ihurch The Pope
then re1uSed 10 crown NaPolcon uHu va.
religious ceremony had taken place Here
a gain the Pope was "lIilde6randic, for hr
forced Caesar in his own palace to obey the
law OF the Council Of Trent
Again. Mr. Smith calls the death OF thes
Duke d Enghien a murder and speaks OF
the "shudder" which passed over turope on
account of il. Mr. Smiths language IL 700
often forensic rather than historical me
Baron de VI neval, a welI-known 'ontenl,
porary. who was on the spot and knew an
the persons taking part in The trial and con,
viction by court-martial OF the unIor' .'na,"
Duke nj VincennCs is a better author o. on
this question than Mr. Smith, who ives
hundred years after me event Ao". ="
moires du Baron de Mtneval, Tome premier.
page 800, Paris. Dentu lSoA ,..,
MIR Smith says that the rcstoral"N oI, ta'
Catholic religion in France by NtpoleoJ
was the consideration wIhic1 lnY.'rn,,4 49,
him II he meqns Nv this am5|.'ls ETotFI
Consideration" that "a haraain ~. maze I.
which the Pope agreed 10 roud0Nr lG..ron
crimes because he restored rruA IN N rih,
tho insinuation is poor sGlsi ~" 'oT ~
torioal proof and is unworthy CI yora'
critic The Poue CondoUel nothing -,
compromised nothing 10y rpNuTF
who was in fact and in law a." = IFm,
was after the rest oialion Of religion trt'S
and after the crOwuing Of NapoI"ur NAV ~
communicates him; II III" I"I'
timid. as Mir Smith charges, why W. "r s
afraid TO eEconNun,cat" man, WA, ,..TIi
destroy religion in franc" as 'dSl'S - ''
restored II? ...o ,ne
Aithoughrit ignores the law, mss'3'F@' e,r ,,'
facts, makes insinuationS ana az I's, r,,'s
cnces not warr4nl"9 tM the -" o., .r,,',,sr
moral Considering the facts as lW ~
history present them the 'l~' ',., /
vriter in luE SIN owes II ~ hH'"r' u ,.,.
and Eis own reputation "a n sChC Tar 'n ~
a h ,H,,I.t. TtFpl