The Irish standard., 1910-02-19
REPLY 70 A CRITIC.

that country to the other.
REPLY 70 A CRITIC.
A moral, sensible and vol bred man
viii not affront us; and no other can
These lines of Cowrer are as applfca-
bic today as when they were written
or all towards, the man who sends an
editor an insulting epistle and forgets
to sign his, name to escape RESPONSE
bility is the greatest. A petty scribe
who cannot sren correctly mailed Us q
letter the other day bringing the editor
Of this paper to task for alleged mis-
takes said to have appeared in last
weeks article on 1.-THE New Bishops of
the Northwest. The anonymous critic
says that the article contains nine err
ror.; and then he exhausts his feeble
sarcasm in reprimMnding what he is
pleased to call "the able editor" instead
-oe pointing out the errors and correct
ing them for his benefit. He, refers
to TWO errors only: land they are not
errors at all. as the sequel will show.
The disgruntled individual who writes
in concealment declares that. the word
"coadjutor' is wrong when applied to
Father Lawler Of ST. Paul., and that
Archbishop ireland should not be con-
graduated on selecting him as such.
1.-THE ..able editor says the scribbler,
f.,1io,to q 4as TJ,. fAro,,a ~, IA a no
las not done." and then adds: ''The
editor of q Catholic paper does not
know the difference between an .auxil-
iary' and &c adjutor.' This fact does
not increase the respect witch the
priests on the subscription list OF the
STANDARD have for it's editorials"
The anonymous critic does not show
us the difference between auxiliary"
and "coadjutnr." but leaves the "able
editor" in the dark. Why not enlisht-
en- him on the difference Of the terms!
The censoricus critic ought to have
known that tho words "auxiliary'' and
"coadjutor'' ure used indiscriminately
in the sense Of assistant or helpar.
Father Lawler, In the technical sense,
may be either: an auxiliary or Z CO.
adjutor. It rests mainly with Arch
bishop Ireland. Coadjutors are Of two
kinds, temporary and with right Of sue
cession. When we said Archbishop
ireland selected him for his coadjutor
we did not define what kind Of 'help-
err" lie was to be. We did not say he
was a coadjutor with the right Of sue
cession, as our critic insinuates. We
know that the Archbishop alone did not
appoint him as we stated in the same
issue. If Archbishop Ireland !, gives
Father Lawler jurisdiction In the do,
cese,. the latte: will be ycoadjutor with
ont right Of snccession) according to
cananical authority
/ Our ill-natured critic resorts to hair
splitting when he accuses the "able
editor" of not knowing what berretta
he had in mind when writing the arti-
Gle. # belfeve al. priests have ber-,
rettas now; 50 they need not work or.
gamble to- WIN then,." says the little
scribe. and then he winds up by saying
that "these are two errors. and there
are at least seven others"
The sable editor did not use the
word gamble In connection with the
appointment Of bishops. nor was II
used in any sense. Intelligent readers
know what ''berrettas" we meant, and
they all know that while the priests
can is black, the bishops cap IL purple.
Cannot prize be won without gam
bling? We enumerated some 81 the
Qualifications Of q priest to merit pros
motions to TIC episcopate. The an
: onymous writer who has brought us
to tosk ought 10 be courteouss and learn
to spell words in ordinary use. We
desire to impress again upon his pro-
round mind the fact that priests who
win the berrettas tpurple) get the bish-
1oprics. We challenge him TO throw