Year: 1879

The immense and almost astounding
amount Of the liabilities of the late Arch
bishop of Cincinnati, as at length ascer-
tained by investigation, is calculated to
make q painful impression on minds
which are sensitive to the honor Of
the Catholic Church in the United States
and on all Christians who venerate piety
out of their own communions. We sup
pose there can be no Catholics and few
Christians of any denomination who do not
feel sympathy and commiseration for the
aged Archbishop Purcell, who is ending life
of eminent usefulness in circumstances Of
disaster and humiliation. His resignation
of his high ecclesiastical dignity betokened
his own sense that he had made fatal mis-
quest of his people that his resignation
should not be accepted attested their
undiminished confidence in his charac-
ter-a confidence fully justified by
his long life of purity, piety and
distinguished zeal for the Church.
But the acceptance of his resignation by the
Pope. in disregard of that affectionate re-
quest, evinces the judgment of the Holy
Father that the venerable Archbishop had
committed imprudences which dis
qualified him for further usefulness
in the important station which he has
doubt that the decision of Pope Leo KILL
was wise and expedient. Although the
great mistake of Archbishop Purcell was q
mere error of judgment, committed with
the purest intentions, it is fatal bar to his
usefulness as an ecclesiastical ruler.


A Catholic bishop or archbishop must
necessarily discharge certain duties in the
administration of property. The church
edifces and institutions Of charity and
education are under his supervision and
control, and he needs to possess considera-
BILE business capacity to administer them
with success This is quite as much as can
be expected Of ON able man in addition to
his spiritual functions. Archbishop Purcell
ventured beyond these limits, and he
has paid heavy forfeit for his imprudence.
Thousands and thousands of humble and
sincere Catholics have reason to regret the
trust they reposed in him as the custodian
Of their modest savings. Perhaps no keener
pangs can be felt by a truly pious aud
benevolent mind than sense of the loss
and suffering he has caused to the too
confiding members Of his flock. A selfish
schemer feels no such poignant regrets at the
misery he has inflicted upon others, but q
man of true benevolence and genuine piety
accuses himself more severely for his nero
errors than more hardened men would for
conscious breaches of trust. But indulgent
sympathy for the misfortunes Of this vcn-
erable and estimable prelate should not
blind Catholics to the indefensible methods
which he pursued.


1t is a grave moral wrong to induce the
deserving poor to intrust their hard earn
ings and scanty savings to any custody
which is not absolutely safe. The unre-
served confidence which such people re-
pose in their religious teachers makes
it too easy to mislead them, especi-
ally as they are in no danger of being mis-
led by intention, but only by errors OF
judgment in the spiritual guides whom they
trust. But when they confidc their prop
erty in this way they do it without any Of
the safeguards which the law throws around
the savings of the poor. The directors OF
an ordinary savings bank are not permitted
to manage the property intrusted to
them according to their own dis
cretion. The law interposes to limit the
amount they may receive from one indi-
vidual, to limit the rate of interest they
may pay and (what is infinitely moro i'm.