ARCHBISHOP RED WOOD'S SERMON.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10786, 13 October 1900, Page 4

ARCHBISHOP RED WOOD'S SERMON.

TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE TRESS

Sir, —Will you allow ihe af«« words— not am the religious questions raised by Archbishop Redwood's sermon—but simply oa the political and moral. Archbishop Redwood, as quoted by yon, cays that the leaders of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin, ZwingKus, etc, were notorious for their vices. How contrary to fact this is may be seat by anyone that cares to open a good encyclopedia, oir history, or dictionary of biography. B\it what about the Popes who occupied the Papal See during the last thirty years of tie 15fch century and the first twenty years of the 16th. I refer to such men as Sixtns IV., Innocent VIIL, Alex VI., Julias 11., and Leo. If any of your readers will take the trouble to consult any standard dictionary of biography or encyclopedia, he wfil find that for fifty years there sat upon the Papal throne all the rices of which human nature is capable. To give only one illustration from a Roman Catholic writer, Burckhard, a high official in personal attendance on Alex. VI., says: "Imagination could not conceive such a monster as Alexander. Crimes grosser than Scythian, acts of treachery worse than Carthaginian are committed without disgrace in the Vatican itself, under the eyes of the Pope. Th-ere ai<e rapes, murders, iuoests, debaucheries, cruelties exceeding those of the Neros and CaliguSas. Licentiousness past description is paraded in contempt of God and man. Sons and daughters are polluted. Harlots and procuresses are gathered together in the mansion of St. Peter. On All Saints' Day fifty women of the town were invited to dinner." The details of what followed are unmentionable. This is th 9 testimony of a Roman Catholic eye-witness. How," I ask, can Dr. Red- ! wood have the temaity to speak as he did I of ths Protestant Reformers when the Popes lof the period were-living such lives-as this'? Again, Archbishop Redwood, as quoted by you, declares that Protestantism lias obstructed, rather than promoted, true civilisation. I ask, where is the evidence of this": England, Scotland. Xortii America. Prussia, Switzerland, Xorway and' Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand are Protestant countries. France, Spain, Italy. Austria, and Mexico are Roman Catholic. Is Dr. Redwood prepared to maintain that tlie.se Roman Catholic countries show a higher civilisation than the. Protestant ? Then 1 should lrke to know in what civilisation consists. Or compare tlie Catholic States of South America with the Protestant Xorth. In power, wealth, stability, education, liberty, morals, Protestant are far before Roman Catholic States. In Spain and Portugal,, e.g.. where tLe priests and monks are educationally.supreme, there are 80 per cent, illiterate,"as against 2 per cent, in Protestant Germany. In Protestant Scotland there were found to be 1 in 74 that could not write, in Catholic Ireland there was'l in 5. Again, in the province of Quebec, there w«re in the Roman Catholic schoo'.s, in 1896. 175,000 scholars, in the Protestant 27,000; yet in the two Roman Catholic Universities there were only 214 students, as against 1314 in the one Protestant University. Does this look as if

Protestantism has obstructed civilisation and devastated schools and stopped the progress of science, as Dr. Redwood declares it

lias? Has lie forgotten Bruno, and Galileo, and St. George ilivart? Was not Galileo condemned for asserting that the earth moved round the sun? Was not Bruno

burnt for Us researches? And as for the moral influence of Protestantism as compared- with Romanism, to which the Archbishop refers, let him study the criminal .statistics of Protectant and Roman Catholic countries, and he will find that the number of murders and illegitimate births in Roman f'atUoMc countries is incomparably higher than in the former, and in Rome and Italy it is the worst of all. As for liberty and justice. "La Croix,"' the most influential Catholic paDU' in France, declui'Ed with respect to the Dreyfus case —"It".is a .religiwis care,'" "As Frenchmen we rejoice over I it (i.e., the verdict) ; as Catholics we- praise God for it." All Protestant countries allow religious liberty, if that wete not so the Archbishop's sermon could not have been delivered. Do Roman Catholics ;tllow a similar liberty? ''"It is our interest," says Professor O'Reiily, of Maynooth, to take our si and on the broad principle of liberty of conscience for all, but for all that" the principle is not true. . . The principle is one winch is not. and never has been, and np.ver will l>2, approved by the Catholic Church." And agr.in. ilonsignor Croke— 'Toleration to Protestants is intolerance to Catholics." ("Liberty of Conscience, p. 24. published by Catlwlic Truth Society). This must sullies for the present. I have the greatest respect for many individual Roman Catholics, and have spent some pleasant hours with Dr. Redwood himself.

but it is not tolerable that such statements ax aie contained in liis sErmon should go without refutation and rebuke in a country nver -which a Protestant sovereign reigns.— Yours, etc., EPSILOX. TO THE EDrTOn OF THE I'BESS. Su'j—lf "Caritas" -wishes to remove the bad feeling created by ArchbJF.liop Redsermon, let him acknowledge that what the Archbjsbop gaid was not the truth. Not one Catholic has yet done this--. I do not intend the stigma to remain, nnd anyone trying tr. polish it over or to explain it away will not erase it. • The remarks of the Archbishop are lies or they ars not ; they were not spoken hastily, but were deliberately and calmly written. Let the Catholics blot out from their teaching and theology the uncharitable and untruthful language • "that all outside the Roman Catholic Church are eternally lost, and damned for ever to eternal flames," and add to this the Catholic decrees at 'present used and believed in by tiiem, which I gave in my last letter, "it will then bs time for "Caritas" to writ* about charity coming from the Catholic Church. He refers again to Faa di Bruno's doctrine, which is an ac- j cumulation of ideas, without any definite doctrine or principle, full of contradictory insinuations, and applicable only to a Roman Catholic. It does not require a genius to detect the misleading ideas of Faa di Bruno, and the eipianation given by "Caritas ,, is only heaping insult upon injury upon an

intelligent people. The writer further states t&afciiie laity were forbidden to read the Scriptures. Well, this bears out my facts. And then he states they were encouraged to read them. Thtn he save that Pius IV., three "hundred years later, refused permission for the Catholics to read their own Scripture. Well, this is what I stated too, and bears out Liguori's teaching, as "Caritas" puts it. "go-as-you-please. ,. But "Caritas" is emphatic wfiere be states that the Catholics being forbidden to read tie Scriptures has long since ceased to exist. What humbug to be sure! Now" tliis is not Latin, and you cannot take exception to the translation, where the Rev. Le Menant de Chesnais, your own priest of the present day in Christc'huruh, says, "That the Holy Scriptures can only be understood through the definitions of his infallible Church, and the explanations of the Fathers and learned and approved doctors." "Private inspiration is an illusion and a cloak." Again he says, "If there is a Divine revelation ('he is not sure yet) we must have an infallible interpreter, and this interpreter is the Catholic Church." Out- j side this Church, he says, "There is nothing* but doubt, despair, and uncertainty. ,. Again, he s"3ys, "Is it not manifest that "those who pretend to be inspired are illusionists, or designed impostors, and would it not be the heignt of folly to listen to their unauthorised and unwarrantable utterances." "The incoherent discourses of preachers are sufficient to show that, if they are inspired at all, it is not by the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of truth and wisdom, but by the Infernal Spirit, who is the father of lies." This is beautiful tolerance. Again, he says, "Th* religious opinions held by the modern Baptists rest on no solid proof, and a-s.'pride is the foundation of their creed, it is very hard to convert them." Again he says, "Out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation possible." Poor Protestants, where do they come in? There is not much charity or goodwill in the above opinions. Again he says, "That justification by faith, arid a belief, a trust, in the atonement made by Christ for sins, is an erroneous and pernicious doctrinal system." What abominable priestly arrogance is here displayed. Now. the above is given in plain English - by your own Vicar-General, and I dare "Caritas," the R«v. Father Le Menant de Chesnais, or Mr Xolan, to deny the above public statements, and then I leave it to the read-. ing public to decide whether the Catholic' Church is not intolerant, untruthful, uncharitable, and unscriptural. According to the above teaching of the Vicar-General, for "Caritas" to interpret the Scripture* by private judgment is an "illusion and senseless theory," and yet the V.G., at the interview hist , week, said that Ihe Church did not condemn private judgments, still it condemns tal liberty, by the Council of Trent, Sess. IV: This letter further proves that the Catholic clergy and laity do not know what ' they belisve. or where their standing is,' when weighed by so many contradictory Catholic proofs. If "Caritas" were up-to-date in his own literature he would at once recognise the quotations I give from Lignori as being correspondence with Cardinal Vaiighan. and which theology 'his Eminence could not deny. Tiht writer also speaks of Pius VI. as encouraging-the reading of the Bible, and points out unwittingly that it was at a time when the people were unlearned. Well, this is illogical. If Pius VI. had had an enlightened people to deal with he would not, aru dare not, have given them the i Bible, as the Council of Trent declares ! against it, and so does the Council of Toulouse, in 1229, which decrees "that anyone possessing or reading the Bible, without permission, cannot obtain absolution." "Caritas" says he can readily understand mv reserve re not giving the doctrine of intention. lam glad he acknowledges so much. He will, of course, as readily admit that those I lectures were given to men only, as being unfit for the gentler sex to listen to. He was very keen to supply the word proba- ! balism for probation, and this suggests plainly that he is wtl! versed in tlieprin- i ciple :' but if he will wait on the Editor he I will- find the wc-rd probation is only a ! printer's error. .After all the Catholic decrees I have given, and all vicing with each in contradiction, and the assertions of the Rev. Le Menant de Che.'rais. who also contiaiicts himself, we have before us a sample of. the on: Church., that ■ claims to be •'.semper cadem." infallible, fchfr sole interpreter of the. Bible, the immediate recipient of the power of Jesus, the director of men's consciences. Surely the responsibility has been more than she can bear.—'Yours, etc., PROTESTANT WOMAN. October 11th, 1900.

ARCHBISHOP REDWOOD'S SERMON. TO THE EDITOK OF THE TRESS. Sir,—May I just tell "M." that the "Osservatore Romano" is tfce official organ of the Viiticau—not the Sydney "Daily Telegraph." —Yours, etc!, CARITAS.