DE. MORIARTY ON THE MANCHESTER EXECUTIONS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 12, Issue 934, 14 April 1868, Page 3

DE. MORIARTY ON THE MANCHESTER EXECUTIONS.

TO THE GLEItGY OF THE DIOCESE OP KERRY. Venerable Brethren, — We saw yesterday in a Dublin weekly newspaper a list of places where requiem masses or other solemn services were celebrated for the persons lately executed in Manchester. To our great surprise one of the places named was Killarney. We lose no time to contradict this statement, which .is a calumny, no doubt unintentional, on the clergy, secular and regular, of this town, and which would be, if true, a scandal to the diocese. As some of the laity were very pi'essing in their demands for such services, it may be useful to state the grounds of our refusal. It is, of course, a right and holy thing to pray for all who died, in the peace of the Church ; and those who pay the last penalty that human justice can exact have a special claim upon our charity. Prayer for their souls is the only mercy with which society can temper the severity of this dread award. It takes from punishment the appearance of vengeance. It reminds us that God loves to pardon those whom man condemns. There are circumstances which render the victims of the late execution more special objects of compassion. Their crime had not that character of atrocity or brutality which marks the murders so frequently reported in the English newspapers. It was not perpetrated through hatred or revenge, or for sordid gain. We may charitably suppose that all concerned had wished and hoped to effect their purpose without shedding human blood. The manner in which the executed met their doom was, by all accounts, edifying and Chrisfcianlike. Many, too, are of opinion that, however certain the alleged facts may be, there was not a fair trial, inasmuch as the evidence was proved to be false with regard to one of the accused. For these reasons, in addition to the general motive of charity, we prayed for them in secret, and asked the Almighty to take them to His eternal rest. Now, if the demand for special public services were based on such considerations, we should not deem it objectionable on the ground of morality. But it was not sympathy or compassion that was asked for, but honour ; and it would be false to assert and childish to believe that it was for such reasons that it was sought to pay public exceptional honour to the deceased. Those amongst us who planned funeral processions, or who asked funeral services, must have believed that the conduct of the executed was praiseworthy, and that they sacrificed their lives in a just and noble cause. If their conduct was morally wrong they should not be made the objects of public honour and admiration ; and to participate in paying such honour, or to^ sanction it, would be a violation of our duty, as the Divinely appointed guardians of morality. In what light, then, must we view those acts of violence which eventuated in the death of a fellow-being? First, it seems plain to us that they were perpetrated in the cause of revolution, and though these poor men may not have been conscious of the tendency of their acts, yet we know that revolution is the chief form of antagonism to God aud to religion which the spirit of evil assumes in our day. Secondly, it will not be denied that these acts were done in defence and for the furtherance of the Fenian conspiracy — that is, of an excommunicated secret society. We tell our people that to belong to this society is a grievous sin. Can we at the same time applaud its champions ? We tell them that the Sovereign Pontiff forbids us to absolve members of secret societies unless they renounce the society and repent of the sin ; and are we to tell them in the same breath that it is heroism aud patriotism to fight and to die for that which the Pope has condemned ? God forbid that any Kerry priest should be ever guilty of such double dealing towards the people, aud of such disrespect to the Holy See ? Thirdly, if those acts of violence arc lawful and praiseworthy, it must be lawful and praiseworthy to repeat them. Are we, as priests of the living God, prepared to give such counsel P Is it lawful to fire shots in a crowded street, with clanger to the lives of innocent and unoffending people ? If a band of Orangemen strove to rescue one of their brotherhood charged with felony or treason, and in the effort shot an unarmed Catholic, should we not deem it immoral — nay, brutal — to give to the homicides a popular ovation? We have heard of another fearful outrage causing death and damage to several who never did harm to us or to our country. Are we expected to canonise the men who fired the gunpowder at Clerkenwell? And yet to make a breach in a jail wall by a dangerous explosion does not imply as direct an intention of homicide as the firing of leadJaden revolvers. We are told that political offences should not be punished with death. If this doctrine is to be accepted, all political offenders should benefit equally by the immunity it affords. The British Government, which is deemed the oldest political offender in this country, may fairly demand that its servants shall not be put to death by their assailants. It is too much to expect that there- should be such a one-sided bargain as would give the power of life and death only to the subject and take it from the ruler. If those who seek to redress the wrongs of our country will abstain from acts or threats of violence, there is no fear, in this age, that any amount of written or spoken disaffection will ever bo visited with the last penalty of the law. The straggle for justice and for reform can bo carried to a favourable issue under the conditions, and according to the rules and principles laid down by the great Kerryman who has been as yet the only successful champion of Irish freedom. Here, at least, we should not forget O'Connoll's maxim, that the man who commits a crime drives a nail in the coffin of this country. We have thus written to you, venerable brethren, first to contradict the statement to which we have alluded, and then to give an answer to those who may be dissatisfied' with the part that we and our clergy have taken. We sometimes hear the' names of hirelings and traitor applied to those who will not join iv the insane movements of the present time. If we were hirelings we would flatter the folly and pander to the prejudice of those on whom we depend for food and raiment. If wo were traitors to our country we would cherish those seci'ct conspirators who are stabbing her at the heart. ."But then wo should l>o also traitors to conscience, traitors to God, traitors to the Gospel which He has entrusted to our keeping and commanded us to preach." — Yours faithfully in Christ our Lord,

t David, Bishop of Kerry Killarncy, Dec. 30, 18(57-