THE TAB LET A IVeekly Newspaper and Review.

WITH SUPPLEMENT.

D u m VOBIS GRATULAM UR , ANIMOS ET IAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCCEPTIS V E ST R IS CONSTANTER M ANEATIS.

From the B r ie f o f H is Holiness to T he T ablet, June 4, 1870.

Vol. 48. No. 1892. L o n d o n , J u l y 15, 1876.

p r . c e 5& B y P o st s ^ d .

[ R e g i s t e r e d a t t h e G e n e r a l P o st O f f i c e a s a N ew s p a p e r

Page

C h r o n ic l e o f t h e W e e k

The Catholic Clergy and Conversions.—Lord Nelson and F. Bowden.—The Poor School Commit tee. —The Government Education Bill.—Anti-Catholic Deputation. —The Anti-Vivisection Bill.—■ Sunday Closing in Ireland.—The •Fortunes of the War.—The Conference at Reichstadt.—The Alleged Atrocities in Bulgaria.— Recall of Mgr. Hassoun.—The •United States and the Sioux —

■ Don Carlos in Mexico . . .. 65

CONTENTS.

L e a d e r s :

Protestant Critics and Catholic

Page

Converts . . .. .. •• 69 National Education, Ireland .. 69 Civilisation and Extermination .. 71 Theology at Exeter .. .. 72 Gleanings fromthe Archives of

Subiaco.—V. .. .. — 73 R e v ie w s :

Hefele’s Councils of the Church.

Vol. I I ............................... .. 75 Philosophy without Assumptions 76 Handbook of Architectural Styles 76 S hort N o t ic e s :

The Magazines for Ju ly .. .. 77 Cyclopaedia of Costume .. .. 77 Before the Altar . . .. . . 77

C o r r e s po n d e n c e :

Page

Papal Scolding .. .. ..77 “ Roman Tactics ” .. . . 78 American Indians .. . . ..79 The Sisters of Charity, West­

minster .. . . .. ..79 The Educational and Missionary Work at Barnet .. . . .. 79 A Day in the Country for 600

Children . . .. . ..79 St. Bridget’s Little Children .. 79 R ome :—Letter from our own Cor­

respondent . . .. .. 81 D io c e s a n N ew s :— Westminster.. . . .. ..82

Southwark . . . . .. ..83 Beverley . . .. .. ..83

D io c e san (continued) ;

Page

Hexham and Newcastle .. . . 83 Salford .. .. . . . . 83 Shrewsbury .. .. .. . . 83 Scotland—Western District . . 83 I r e l a n d

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent .. . . . . ..83 F o r e ig n N ew s :—

Germany . . . . . . ..84 M em o randa :—

Religious .. . . . . . . 85 Catholic Union . . .. . . 85. Cricket . . .. . . . . 86 Legal .. .. . . . . ..86 P a r l ia m e n t a r y S um m a r y . . 86 G e n e r a l N ew s .........................87

CHRONICLE OF TH E W EEK .

THE CATHOLIC CLERGY AND CONVERSIONS. W

E have a great dislike to making a fuss about conversions— more especially the conversions o f private people— to the Catholic faith. Such an event is, it seems to us, one which concerns the individual, or at the most his or her personal friends, and nobody else. We only depart from our usual rule on the present occasion because a certain conversion has during the past week been used by some o f the daily papers as a ground for making charges against Catholics which appear to us outrageously absurd. The facts, as we learn them from the public “ sources of infor“ mation,” are simply these. A young gentleman wanting but a year to attain his legal majority, goes to a Catholic priest and requests to be received into the Catholic Church. The priest examines him and finds that he has studied the question, holds all Catholic doctrine, and is anxious to be reconciled to the Church. The priest has exercised no persuasion, and it appears that he did not even know who the young man was. Considering the disposition that he was in, and the fact that he was about to leave the place, the priest could not very well defer acceding to his request. H e accordingly received him, first inquiring whether his parents were still alive, and, learning that they were, he advised the young gentleman to inform them of the step he was taking ; if he did not think it prudent to do so beforehand, at least on the day of his reception. Here is the grievance, and the father o f the young convert, Lord Nelson— as he has himself brought his case before the public, there is no reason why we should not mention his name—complains bitterly of the •tactics o f which people “ in his rank o f life ” are likely to be the object— a piece o f bad taste, by the bye, of which those 41 in his rank o f life ” are happily not often guilty. And this connects itself with the charges made by the Tim es and S ta n d a rd . Catholics, or Catholic priests, are accused of “ a greediness in proselytizing,” of “ pettiness,” “ mean41 ness,” and, in a word, o f “ tactics,” as though some great honour, glory, and advantage was to be gained to the Church by the reconciliation o f the younger son o f an earl. That may be Lord Nelson’s opinion, but it is not ours, nor, we should hope, that of any other Catholic. One human soul is not of the least more value than another because it happens to be ticketed in this world with a “ courtesy “ title.” But this is by the way. The great grievance is that the father of the young gentleman in question was not informed beforehand. Of what is proper in every particular case none but the persons who have actually to make up their minds about it can be competent judges. P r im d fa c ie, and speaking generally, confidence is due to

New S e r ie s , V ol. XVI. N o . 401.

parents, and it is better that they should be informed of such a matter beforehand. But there may be a hundred reasons why in any particular instance this course cannot be adopted. Everybody will admit that, if a person is seriously convinced that reconciliation to the Church is a solemn duty— as imperatively binding on his conscience as the conversion to Christianity o f a convinced heathen in primitive times—then his first duty is to be so reconciled, and to take care that he is not prevented or dissuaded from taking the step. To what extent that danger really existed in this particular case we have of ourselves no possible means of ascertaining; the convert himself was naturally the best judge, and old enough to form an opinion. But it is quite absurd to accuse the clergy of greedy proselytising because they receive into the Church people whose relations do not like it. What are the clergy for ? Let Protestant critics only look at the thing for a moment from a Catholic point o f view. Catholic priests are the administrators o f a great institution established by God as the ordinary means for the rescue and salvation o f human souls. We do not say that none who do not visibly profit by that institution can possibly be rescued or saved, but this is the ordinary means for their rescue and salvation. How then can a priest refuse to apply the machinery o f this institution — that is, the Sacraments—to any soul which asks for i t ? Nay more, how can he neglect to seek for souls ? T o look about for temporal reasons— especially such despicable reasons— to account for the readiness o f a priest to make converts, is either to forget what a priest believes his religion to be, or consciously to ignore an obvious and natural motive for an act, in order to attribute to an adversary another that is mean and contemptible. We hope these are not universally “ Anglican tactics.”

Having thus protested against the general

— ™ charges brought against Catholics, we proceed f . bow d en . t0 notice certain inaccuracies o f statement con­

tained in the correspondence itself, and certain further unfairnesses committed by the London Press. First, Lord Nelson states in his first letter that “ a lady who had “ left the Church o f England and became a Nun, obtained “ an introduction to my son.” We are in a position to state that Mr. Nelson was introduced to her by a lady occupying a confidential position in Lord Nelson’s family. Secondly, Lord Nelson says that this nun “ appointed to meet him “ [Mr. Nelson] at Roman Catholic services, and carried on “ a correspondence with him behind my back.” The lady in question never made any such appointments, and never met Mr. Nelson anywhere save in the public parlours o f her own convent. And, as to carrying on a correspondence with him “ behind Lord Nelson’s back,” she simply answered the purely controversial letters which Mr.