THE TABLET

A Weekly Newspaper and Review.

D u m VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.

From the B r ie f oj H is Holiness to T he T ablet, Ju n e 4, 1870.

Vol. 38. No. 1642. L o n d o n , S e p t e m b e r 30, 1871. P r i c e 5

■ Ch r o n i c l e o f t h e W e e k : The

“ Times” on German Anti-Catholicism.— The “ Standard’s ” Plea against Infallibility.— State v. •Church in Hungary.—Mr. Gladstone, Greenwich, and the Miners. — Mr. Gladstone on Home Rule. —Mr. Gladstone on the International. — The Lesson of the Manœuvres.— Reform in Artillery Tactics.— The Megæra.— Episcopal Presbyterians. — The CisLeithan Diets.— Civil Marriage in Germany.— The Elections to the Councils-General.— The Evacuation and French Finance.— Sentences on the Communists.— M. Victor Lefranc’s Suns. — The Italian Authorities and the “ Univers.”— &c., &c.................................417

C O N T E N T S . L e a d e r s :

The Syrian Persecution and the

Damascus Consulate . . .4 2 1 Lord Derby and our Prosperity . 421 What Anti-Catholic Germans think of Dollingerism .... 422 In Memoriam. His Excellency the Baron Charles von Hugel . 423 E n g l is h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n s a n d

C a t h o l i c I n t e r e s t s :

XXXV.— Consequences o f the

R e v ie w s :

Councils and Ecclesiastical Docu­

ments relating to Great Britain and Ireland. .... 427 Hardy Flowers .... 428 Family Pride ..... 429 Sister M a y ...................................... 430 S h o r t N o t i c e : The Joys of a

Consecrated Church.— The Catholic World.— Revue Bibliographique Universelle . . 430 C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :

Clare Election.— The Relief A c t ............................................ 424 The International Exhibition.— The

Pictures of all Nations . . . 425 T h e A n g l i c a n M o v e m e n t :

The “ Church Herald” again does not say what it means by “ Catholic” .... 426

Young Men’s Societies . . .4 3 1 R om e :

Letter from Rome . . . 432 R e c o r d o f t h e C o u n c i l :

Dr. Döllinger’s “ Thousands among the Clergy think as I do ” . . 433 The Döllinger Manifesto from a

French point of view . . . 434

R e c o r d o f t h e C o u n c il (continued) ;

The Programme of the Döllinger „ P a r t y ....................................-4 34 Schism and Revolution . . . 435 D io c e s a n N ew s : Westminster.—

Southwark.— Beverley.— Birmingham.— Hexham and Newcastle.— Liverpool • 43S I r e l a n d :

Letter from our Dublin Correspondent

IOREIGN jN e w s :

F rance .

Italy

Syria . . . . . 438 M EMORANDA:

Religious

Literary .

Scientific

G e n e r a l N ew s

. 436

■ 437

. 438

. 438

. 440

. 440

. 440

C H R O N I C L E O F T H E W E E K . THE “ TIMES ON GERMAN

ANTICATHOLICISM. S ’ IR GEORGE BOWYER has written to the Times— we print his admirable letter elsewhere— to point out that the resistance offered by Civil Governments to a purely theological doctrine is superfluous, and absurdly inapplicable to a time when the real danger -comes from quite another quarter. To this the Times Teplies in a leading article that German statesmen are in fact doing exactly what Sir George Bowyer says they ought to do. “ They are respecting authority and leaving it to its ■“ proper department in religion. Their language to religious “ people is, ‘ Have you authority ; hold i t ; define it and “ ‘ interpret it as you please. But since you cannot agree

‘ about it, and have a multitude of questions which no “ ‘ State can pretend to decide for you, we must leave au-

‘ thority to its own province— in the heart and soul; in pri“ ‘ vate opinion ; in the religious worship and life.’ ” Now we do not wish to bring accusations of disingenuousness in argument or the like ; we merely wish to point out that the writers in the English press who are continually indulging in this kind of reasoning must evidently be either ignorant of the facts of the case, or at least have neglected to look at any side of it but their own. That the State, as State, should take no notice of a new definition of dogma, is only what in these days we should expect, and its doing so would not have given rise to any complaint. But this is not all that it has done. It has done two things especially. In one country the attendance of children on the lectures of State professors is obligatory. A professor, appointed as a Catholic for Catholic children, ceases to be a Catholic. Of this the Church itself, through the Bishops, must for the Prussian Government be the only judge ; “ these are ques“ tions,” as the Times tells us, “ which no State can pretend “ to decide.” What does the State do? It steps out of its province and tells the Bishop that he is wrong, that the professor is still a Catholic, and that the Catholi-c children must still receive their education from him. This is one thing. Here is another. The Catholic Church is essentially a hierarchical body. It is a truism to say so, and every State which recognizes her presence acknowledges the fact. Her priests are subordinate to their Bishops, as her Bishops are ultimately to the Pope. To put the case in as popular terms as possible : certain religious acts done by a Catholic priest must be done with the sanction and in the communion of the local Bishop in order to be valid. I f a priest is either suspended or excommunicated by his Bishop, it is unlawful for the people to make use of his ministrations. Now, in several cases German Governments have forcibly maintained excommunicated priests in ministering in Catholic churches, and have even diverted Catholic churches to their use. The

New Series. V ol. V I . No. 151.

State has no business whatever with the question whether the Bishop is right or wrong in excommunicating the priest, “ these are questions which no State can pretend to decide.” Let us put altogether out of sight the fact that there can be no doubt whatever about' the right or wrong of a case in which a Catholic priest is in rebellion against the Bishops, a General Council, and the Pope. The case is conceivable of a priest being wrongfully excommunicated by his Bishop. Even then the State has no right to interfere. The priest has his remedy in the regular course of ecclesiastical appeal. And for the State to step in and judge, and give it against authority, is no whit less improper than if the Home Office were to quash the sentence of a court-martial, instead of leaving it to be carried to the Horse Guards. To say that the appellant rejects the authority of the whole hierarchical system, and that he therefore cannot appeal, is no argument for interference ; that fact of itself proves that he is out of place in the system, that the only course open to him is to leave it, and that to force him upon it is an absurdity as well as a tyranny over its true members. the “ Stan- -*-n same letter Sir George Bowyer com- dard’s” plea mented on the different attitude assumed by the against in - Standard towards disendowment and Revolu- FALLiBiLiTY. tion ¿n i reianc] ancj at Rome. We have always been at a loss to account for the Fenian line taken by our Conservative contemporary when treating of Rome on any other hypothesis than that of the entire subordination of political principle to religious partizanship. Evading this point, the Sta?idard replies to Sir George Bowyer by a defence of the current objections to the doctrine of Infallibility. In writing of this defence we feal a certain amount of embarrassment, for we do not wish to appear discourteous: but the fact is, that the argument is founded upon a series of propositions every one of which we must meet with a flat contradiction. We mean that the contradictory of every one of them is true. First our contemporary speaks of “ the attempt “ of the Roman Curia to establish an authority which 20 “ years ago it would not have dreamed of asserting.” Rome has always persistently asserted the Infallibility. Again, we are told that Governments are quite right to oppose the doctrine, because its proclamation “ is practically a declaration “ that every European Government has no right to the al“ legiance of its subjects unless the Pope approves its laws.” This is distinctly untrue, and this meaning has been disavowed by the Pope over and over again. Again, the definition “ is the “ introduction of a doctrine which the bulk of the Catholic “ Church repudiated only two years ago.” The bulk of the Catholic Church has always firmly held it. “ It is a doctrine “ which, even whilst the Council was sitting, was strongly “ opposed by nearly all the Bishops who could venture to “ oppose the Roman Court.” Now, passing over the Bishops of the new kingdom of Italy, we should like to know why