WE have read in the “Protestant Observer” for last month a very instructive article on the above subject—an article by a Mr. Arthur Walsh, which originally appeared in a Belfast newspaper. It embodied a number of telling quotations from Roman Catholic documents and books, which clearly show that the principle of persecution holds the same place as ever in the creed of the Roman Church, and that it is the want of power and not of will that prevents her from putting the principle into practice in the present day to the extent she did in the days of old. Mr. Walsh supplies ample proof that Irish Protestants have abundant reason to fear Home Rule, as behind the Nationalists they discern the Church of Rome, with all her intolerant and persecuting principles. He makes it plain that Irish priests are taught the doctrine of persecution in the Maynooth College at the present moment. We take the liberty of reproducing, among other things, a number of Mr. Walsh’s quotations in the remaining part of this article, which speak for themselves, and which our readers should bring before the notice of any of their friends who see no danger in the Home Rule scheme.
Mr. Walsh gives the following quotations to show that the Pope claims property in every person that is baptised in the name of the Trinity, whether Protestant or Papist. All, without exception, “belong” to the Pope. Pius IX., in an epistle to the German Emperor in 1873, wrote: “Everyone who has been baptised belongs in some way or other—which to define more precisely would be here out of place—belongs, I say, to the Pope.” Thomas Slater, a Jesuit theologian, in his work, “A Manual of Moral Theology for English-speaking Countries,” declares: “Men become subject to the Church by Christian baptism. . . . Heretics and schismatics who are validly baptised are subject to the Church’s laws.” Again, Edmund J. O’Reilly, S.J., sometime a professor at Maynooth, states in his book, “Relations of the Church to Society”: “A Protestant clergyman or a Protestant layman introduces the child whom he validly baptises into the Catholic Church, as the Pope could, and into no other.” This theory does not seem consistent with the doctrine of the excommunication of Protestants, but consistency is not in Rome’s line, and she is determined at all costs to frame her creed so as to justify in some way her tyrannical assumptions of authority over Protestants.
Mr. Walsh then points out that the Roman Church claims supremacy over the State. He gives the following definition of the relation of Church and State from “A Manual of Church History,” by Gilmartin, a Maynooth professor:—”There should be a union between the Church and State as between the two great constituent elements of one moral body, each working in its proper sphere for the common good. This union must be effected by subordination of the one to the other, and not by co-ordination. For the latter would require that a third authority should be established on earth, to which disputes between the Church and State would be referred for settlement. As one of the powers must, however, be subordinate to the other, it follows, as a matter of course, that the spiritual should rule, at least so far as to define the limits of its authority, and direct the movements of the State according to the law of God, as the human soul directs the body.”
It may be clearly seen from this what task the Church of Rome will set before her, if Home Rule is granted to Ireland. The Church (so-called) will “direct the movements of the State.”
Mr. Walsh gives quotations on the subject of persecution from the class books which are used at Maynooth College. These quotations prove beyond contradiction that the Irish priesthood is educated in the doctrine that Protestants may be put to death for their religion. Toleration is only exercised when it is more to the advantage of Rome to do so. The moral theology of Thomas Aquinas is still taught. The following is his doctrine:—”With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered: one element on their side and the other on the part of the Church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offence to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence, if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics—immediately they are convicted of heresy—be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the Church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err, and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the Church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the Church by the sentence of excommunication; and, further, she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.”
Again, Gilmartin, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Maynooth, writes as follows:—”Universal religious toleration is as indefensible in theory as it has been found impossible in practice. A man is said to tolerate religious error when he can put an end to it, but for some reason or other fails to do so. Such toleration is incompatible with the love of truth and the obligations of charity. And the more one loves religious truth and the spiritual interests of his neighbour, the more must he seek—within the limits of justice and prudence—to stamp out heterodoxy. Hence must the Catholic Church, ‘the pillar and the ground of truth,’ be ever intolerant of heresy, as truth must be of error. . . . From these principles it follows—(a) that the State can punish heresy as an evil in itself and as an offence against the Church; and (b) the Church can require the assistance of the State in suppressing heresy, if its interference be deemed necessary for the good of society. This, however, would occur only in exceptional circumstances. From the fact that the Catholic State can consistently punish religious dissent it by no means follows that a Protestant State can do the same. For the former has the guarantee of infallibility on its side in deciding what is heresy, while the latter repudiates any such privilege in its Church.”
Edmund J. O’Reilly, S.J., already quoted, is the author of the following:—”Suppose the Catholic religion to be recognised as divinely true by all sovereigns, as God wished it to be. Suppose the Catholic religion to be united with every State in friendly alliance, as God wished it to be. Suppose, further, that in the midst of this condition of things a few men—or even not a few—rose up in some country and sought to disturb this divinely-appointed system, would they or ought they to have been left free to do so? Certainly not. . . . It is the undoubted duty of Catholic Governments to protect the Catholic religion, to promote its interests, to guard their subjects against the encroachments of heresy, so far as circumstances permit. The followers of false religions may sometimes have acquired such a footing in the country that they cannot legitimately be disturbed. . . . But the theory that unbounded liberty of conscience, in the received sense of the word—unbounded liberty of religious profession and worship—the theory, I say, that this liberty is a thing originally and fundamentally right is a false theory. . . . It is our interest to take our stand on the broad principle of liberty of conscience for all; on the doctrine that differences of religion are not to be minded by Governments—that they are to be settled with God, not with man. I freely admit that this doctrine is convenient for Catholics who have to do with Protestant Governments. The principle of liberty of conscience—unbounded liberty of conscience—once admitted, is a strong shield and a powerful weapon against oppression of Catholics. The unexclusiveness of the principle commends it to many an adversary of our faith. Hence it is that Catholics have been led to proclaim it, emphasise it, and extol it in the most eloquent terms. I do not mean to imply that the Catholics I allude to consciously put forward a false theory for a purpose. . . . The convenience of the ultra-tolerant theory we have been considering commends it to those circumstances as Catholics are in these countries, and helps to make many of them believe it; while, on the other hand, they are disposed to look on an opposite view as not only incorrect but dangerous. But for all that the principle is not true, and we must not sacrifice truth for convenience, not even to what may seem the public good. The principle is one which is not, and never has been and never will be, approved by the Church of Christ.”
Still further, let our readers study the following quotation from a Maynooth text-book by F. X. Schouppe:—”What must be thought of civil tolerance from the point of view of right? In principle absolute civil tolerance is bad and unjust, and contrary to both natural and Divine right. (1) Truth has a right to be protected against error as much as virtue against vice and order against disorder. A legislator is, then, bound to protect the true religion, and to repress error, just as much as he is bound to protect order and repress disorder. . . . Can we, then, establish in principle the separation, or we may say the divorce, of the Church from the State? . . . This assertion, so justly condemned by the Church, is contrary alike to Divine and natural right, and to the persuasion of mankind. In a country where there are many religions, but where the Catholic religion predominates, it must be the favoured one. False worships may be tolerated so long as they remain inoffensive. Persecution cannot be lawful in favour of truth or error. I mean persecution properly so called—that is to say, violence employed against an unoffending religion or error. But if such religion or error becomes, on the contrary, turbulent and hurtful, its acts may be reprov’d like any other offence, in which case it suffers punishment, not persecution. In the same way, if a member of the Church becomes unfaithful, and falls into heresy, or commits some other great crime, such member can be punished by the ecclesiastical authority on whom he depends. The Church has a right not only to censure her subjects, but, if she thinks proper, she can also inflict external penalties, and have recourse to the secular power. In this case also it would be punishment and not persecution that the offender would undergo.”
A final note of Rome’s doctrine of persecution is from a Professor M. de Luca, who wrote as follows in 1900:—”The good that is most necessary to the church is the unity of the true faith, and that cannot be preserved unless the heretic be handed over to death. . . . So when heretics have been left to the secular arm the judges must inflict on them the penalty, not of death only, but of fire.”
In view of all these sentiments, held by the Roman Church of to-day, can any reasonable Protestant say that it is at all safe to grant Home Rule to Ireland? Where is the guarantee for safety or peace? Let our Government, and all who support them in this pernicious Home Rule scheme, be warned that they are handing over the Protestants of Ireland to the peril of suffering and death.