St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1915-03-05


cy, namely that the end justifies
the means. will let two of
your Catholic brethren speak on
this point. The article on The
Jesuits" in the Encyclopedia
Britannica was written by
Richard Frederick Lit
tledale and Ethelred Luke
Taunton. They say True il
is that Busembaum uses these
words: Cui licitus est inis etiam
licent media. But on turning
to his work it will be found that
the author is making no univer-
sal application of an old legal
maxim; but is treating of a par
ticular subject concerning GER
tain lawful liberties in the mar
ital relation) beyond which his
words can not be forced.
Again they say It is undeniable
that some of their moral writer's
were lax in their teachings; con-
science was strained 10 the snap
ping point. The Society was
trying TO make itself all things
to all men. Propositions eX-
tracted from Jesuit moral theo-
logians have again and again
been condemned by the pope and
declared untenable. These
men were writing in defense of
the Jesuits, and certainly did
not admit more against them
than the facts demanded. Their
statements sustain what | said
about the Jesuits.
The statement from st. Ligou-
ri is the following: ." A bishop,
however poor he may be, cannot
appropriate to himself pecunia-
ry fines without license of the
apostolical See. But he ought TO
apply them TO pious uses. Much
less can he apply those fines to
anything else but pious uses,
which the Council of Trent has
laid upon nonresident clergy
men, or upon those clergymen
who keep Concubines." Alex
ander Campbell quoted this state
ment in his debate with Bishop
John B. Purcell from a translation
made by Samuel b. Smith, for
merly priest in the Roman
Catholic Church. Bishop Pur-
cell declared that st. Ligouri
never said anything so abomina-
BILE, and called Alexander Kin.
mont before the audience to
translate what Ligouri said on
the subject. The Bishop had
placed in Mr.. Kinmont's hands
an amended edition of Ligouri's
works in which Mr.. kinmont
failed to find the disputed pass
age. but Mr.. Smith sent the Lat
i'm of the passage TO Mr.. Camp
bell and q statement signed by
prominent ministers in New
York and by Prof. Samuel +. b.
Morse. certifying that the eX-
tract was taken from page 4ll
of volume 8, of Ligouri's works.
and properly translated by Mr..
Smith. Mr. Campbell then took
the copy which Bishop Purcell
had in his own library TO Mr..
Kinmont who read both the
original and the translation and
certified as follows:
THE above version of Smith
page 29l | regard to be a faith
full translation of the passage as
il stands in Sth volume OF Lig-
ouri page 14l. - Alexander Kim
mont. Cincinnati, Feb. 3. 1887.
From the above you can clear
~ see that the trouble is be.
tween you and st. Logouri, and
not between you and me.
You deny that Pope Plus !
condemned the separation of
church and state. lhaye before
me The Papal Syllabus of Err
rors" A. ID. 1864. in Latin and
English. The statements are
negative, but the one who reads
them through can see that they |
were meant TO teach the opposite
of what they condemn. | pre-
sumo you will not deny that he |
meant the opposite of error num-
her 2. "All action of God upon
man and the world is to be de-
MED"
If he meant the opposite of the |
following, he clearly opposed
the separation of church and
state. "ln the present day itl
is no longer eXpedient hat the |
Catholic religion shall be held |
as the only religion of the state |
TO the exclusion of all other |
modes of worship" Error I'D
Whence it has been wisely |
provided by law. i'm some coun-
tries called Catholic, that per-
sons coming to reside therein |
shall enjoy the public exercise
of their own worship" Error
7S.)
did not try to prove i'm my |
lecture that the Roman Catholic |
Church is trying to secure un-
ion of church and state in
America, therefore your denial
of that is uncalled for.
You advised me to study |
Catholic history on the questions