Year: 1878

In the case Of Rev. Father McKenna, re-
Gently decided by the Supreme Court o.
Massachusetts,, that tribunal SUSTAINED
the judgment of o lower court giving
damages against Father McKenna under
peculiar circumstances. He had been
called to the poor-house to visit dying
woman. She desired to receive the usuai
sacramento, including penaDce, and the
matron Of the establishment concluded to
be present at her confession. Father Nc
Kenna insisted on her leaving; she
refused, and he put her ont. He was sued
for assault, and the jury gave a verdict
against him, which, as we stated above,
was recently sustained by the Supreme
Court of the State.


Technically speaking, the matron had
control of the house and every apartment
in it. She lad q general right to be
wherever che pleased upon the premises.
But was that right absolutely unlimited
Is it possible chat the laws of Massachu-
eetts can mean to impose upon the inmates
of such houses slavery 80 abJect as to be
without the right to one moment of priva-
cy at any time whatever But suppose
that there ia such a law, is it, can it be,
binding, when the interests of eternity are
at stake Would any true Christian be
in conscience bound to obey law that
prohibited him from doing those things
which Christ has commanded him to DO
Certainly not but one of tho most imper-
ative duties of priest is to administer the
h. tn ri
them, and particularly in extremity. He
cannot, then, and will not, obey any law
which prevents such action, unless supe-
rior power forces him to do it.


We do not precisely know the circum-
stances in this case, but suppose Father
McKenna's action to have been necessary
to the administration of the sacrament.
In that case he was certainly justifisble
morally in doing as he did, without vio-
lence of manner or harehness Of any kind.
Not only was hejustifable but he was imper-
atively bound to do it. He could not i'm
peril the salvation of an immortal soul
while sticking about scme minor legal
provision or social etiquette.


This being the cage, ought not an en-
lightened court to find some way of pro-
tecting such action as his, illegal in tech
nical sense only, and justifable under
every aspect of moral law and good con-
science? Are there no general principles
securing the liberty of conscience Is
there no public policy abhorring and for
bidding slavery We speak not of the
rights of the priest, but of the rights of the
dying penitent. Had she no right at such
a moment, higher and more potent than
some little, narrow, township regulation
For our part we believe that she had an
absolute, indefeasible right to save her
soul in spite of all lave, and to take such
steps looking to that end as to her seemed
necessary.


But if the Supreme Court could not take
that view of the case, it certainly could
not for moment Disguise to itself the
infamous brutality of the woman who
would play eaves-dropper at the confes-
sional of a dying fellow-creature. The
judges could not blind themselves to the
fact that Father McKenna acted entirely
without malice and solely from a sense of
duty. In thatscase they should have linn
tied the verdict to the traditional legal but
nominal damage of one cent, and have
stigmatized the woman's outrage as it de.
served.


We find nothing of this, however, in
their Judgment, no reprobation of the ma
tron's brutal bigotry, no sympathy for the
dying pauper, no regret that an imperfect
law forces them to an apparent injustice.
This is to be regretted, as it leaves them
in an equivocal position of neutrality on an
issue where no decent man can be neutral


Labor in Politics.