Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1879. THE REV. LINDSAY MACKIE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VI, Issue 310, 28 March 1879, Page 13

Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1879. THE REV. LINDSAY MACKIE.

§N the leader of the New Zealand Christian Record of the 21st inst., we find the following words, "On the contrary, however, we have to thank Bishop Moran — first, that in the interests of Protestantism he continues to force the teach ings of Jesuitism on the attention of this community." It is not true that Bishop Morax continues to force the teachings of Jesuitism on the attention of this community. But it is true, that the Rev. Lindsay Mackie continues to force the most flagrant falsehoods as to the teaching of Guuy on the attention of this community. On this subject Bishop Moran has confined himself to defence, and has not on any occasion gone beyond the limits of defence.

The case stands thus : Some time ago the Rev. Lindsay Mackie, by publishing in the Christian Record an article on " Gury's Compendium of Moral Theology " taken from the Southern Cross, charged Catholics with teaching the lawful-

ness of deceit, tbeft, perjury, assassination, and murder. Tbis was an outrage on Catholics, to wlwh they could not tamely submit. Bishop Moran, as their head and representative in this province, asked the Rev. Lindsay Mackie to be good enough to point out the passages in " Gury's Compendium," in which the doctrines imputed to him were taught; and received in reply an uncivil and supercilious* answer. In the next issue of the New Zealand Tablet, Bishop Moran wrote a leader on the subject, in which he maintained that these charges were without foundation, showing that whilst some of them were pure fabrications, not one of them fairly represented Guky's teaching. "After some time, the Christian Record published another article from the Southern Gross, in which, whilst dropping four of the thirteen original charges, the writer reiterated nine of these, giving references to passages in " Gury's Compendium," and Casus Cvnscienthe, which, he maintained, proved that Gury taught the various doctrines attributed to him. In an article .published in the Tablet, and subsequcntlyin the Evening Star, Bishop Mouak took up the several passages referred to by the Cross and Record, and showed that in some instances the passages proved the very opposite of what had been charged against i Guky, and that in no instance had the Southern Cross and Christian Record fairly represented him. To this article the Rev. Lindsay Mackie published a reply in the Christian Record which Bishop Moran designated a rigmarole ; and which he wow purposes to notice more nt length. We have made the above statement for the purple of showing that so far from forcing the teaching of Jesuitism on the attention of this community, Bishop Moran has done nothing more than defend Catholics against cruel and unmerited charges, and Gury's theology against unfounded charges made by men who are either profoundly ignorant of the subject on which they have undertaken to write, or intensely wicked. It is evident, then, that Bishop Moran has confined himself to defence. Beyond this he has not gone, nor does he intend in this article to step beyond tho limits of legitimate defence. But he claims the right, a right which he means to use, to defend Catholics against the most gross and unfounded charge of teaching the lawfulness of deceit, theft, perjury, assassination and murder. This is a grievous charge and Catholics are strictly bound to defend themselves against it. The Rev. Lindsay Mackik has been guilty of the greatest outrage on blameless, honourable, loyal fellow-citizens : ot an outrage, which we do not believe any layman of position or education, or of even common decency, in this community would be guilty of. The Rev. Lindsay Mackie's charges against Catholics are revolting, improbable on the face of them, and monstrous in the midst of a civilised community. The state of mind of the man who could bring himself to make such charges against between two and three hundrend millions of fellow Christians is not to be envied. The Rev. Lindsay Mackie can not plead in extenuation that his charges were only levelled against Gury's " Compendium and Casus Conscientiie." For the first article of the Southern Cross on this subject, published in the Christian Record by the Rev. Lindsay Mackie, distinctly stated that " Gury's Compendium" had been translated into nearly all languages (which statement, by the way, is not true) i and used in almost all Catholic colleges. It is clear, then, j that the Rev. Lindsay Mackie's charges were intended to compromise all Catholics. His conduct, therefore, has been i from first to last cruel, unjust, and, under every point of view, monstrous. To this hour he has not retracted his charges of deceit, theft, perjury, assassination, and murder, he has not apologised, he has not expressed the slightest compunction for reiterating calumnies against Catholics ; on the contrary, he still maintains that Gury teaches the doctrines alleged against him, with one exception ; and he has taken elaborate pains to make his readers believe that " Gury's Compendium and Casus Conscientije" authorise him to state that his charges are true. Not satisfied with endeavouring to prove the truth of the nine charges to which the writer of the second article from the Southern Cross confined himself, the Roy. Lindsay Mackie in his article of the 14th instant, takes up also the four dropped ones ; so that it is evident he undertakes the defence of the first article as a whole. On the first two points, however, the Rev. Lindsay Mackie says — " the relevancy of the charges made depends on the exact meaning of a technical theological term. After very careful consideration of the whole passage referred to in Gury I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the writer

1

has failed on the first point fully to grasp the meaning of the question, and it is evident at a glance that by misquoting the second question, using disbelief for ignorance, has reduced it to nonsense." The first charge then goes to the wall. Gury has here been misunderstood, misquoted, and made to speak nonsense by the Southern Cross. So says the Rev. Lindsay Mackie ; and he could have used similar language with equal truth in reference to almost all the other charges No better description of the charges taken as a whole, than such as is expressed by these words can be given. Gury has been misunderstood, misquoted, and made to speak nonsense - The charges arc, some of them misrepresentations, others fabrications, and the attempt to fasten them on Gury, is a rigmarole, wonderful m the eyes of every real theologian and shocking to every man of principle capable of understanding Gury's treatise on theology, and his " Casus Conseicntia." The Rev, Lindsay Mackie continues : " The next point raised is the bmdingforce of an oath." Gury has been charged with teaching "that a person need not observe an oath taken under apprehension that injurious consequences might accrue to him from it." Bishop Moran stated, and states again, "Gury does not teach this" what Gury does is this, he puts the question "Does a promissory oath extorted by great and unjust fear bind." This is different from the question fathered on him by the Southern Cross. These are two distinct questions, and it will not suffice for the Rev. Lindsay Mackie to say there is a fine distinction here. Theology abounds m fine distinctions, as does every scientific treatise, and the man who is unable to appreciate and understand finedistinctions is not qualified to pronounce an opinion on the meaning of a theological work. But even in reference to this question of Gury, which is not at all the question raised by the Southern Cross, Gury does not teach anything of himself on the point. He simply gives two opinions and there he leaves the matter a thing very usual in all treatises on theological or moral subjects. It may interest our readei sto see an illustration of this from a Protestant work on Moral Philosophy, written in English. We take up « Paley's Moral Philosophy," and in B. 3 pt. 10.16. 5. we find the following, Ist, promissory oaths, ho says, are not bindlnq, Avhere the promise itself would not be so; and 2nd, in reference to a Promise extracted by fear he says (C. 5), » It has long been controverted amongst moralists whetherproinises be binding which are extorted by violence or fear. The obligation results, as we have seen, from the necessity or the use of that confidence which mankind repose in them. The question, therefore, whether these promises are binding will depend upon this, whether mankind upon the whole are benefited by the confidence placed m euch promises? A highwayman attacks you, and being disappointed of his booty, threatens or prepares to murder you; you promise with many asseverations ™f rf he ™11 spare your life, he shall find a purse of money left for him at a place appointed. Upon the faith of this promise he forbears from further violence. Now your life was saved by the confidence reposed in a promise extorted by fear • and the lives of others may be saved by the same. This is a good consequence. On the other hand, a confidence in promises like these would greatly facilitate the perpetration of robberies ; they might be made instruments of unlimited extortion. This is a bad consequence : and in the question between the importance of these opposite consequences resides the doubt concerning the obligation of such consequences " lake (jury, Paley, on this point, gives the two opinions and there leaves the matter : but as to the obligation of a promis_spry_ftste, Paley is decided in teaching that it does not bind where the promise itself does not bind. Gury is not so decided. Now would it be treating Paley fairly to write some unmeaning words and then cay Paley certainly teaches a person need not observe an oath if taken under apprehension that injurious consequences might accrue to him fiom it ? Yet on a misstatement as to the question of Gury, and on a misstatement as to the answer of Gury, the Rev. Lindsay Mackik has no hesitation in saying that Gury teaches the very thing which he does not teach. c The Rev. Lindsay Mackie does not understand what he is writing about when he uses the following words—" A man may promise a donation pledging to both God and man in the most solemn manner by an oath that he will give it • but the donation is not yet accepted, and in the meantime the man held m the bonds of his oath changes his mind? Why hocus pocus and the thing is done ; a little logic, the simplest syllogism will dissolve into fine air chains of adamant " This is said m reference to our answer that there is no truth in the charge of the Southern Cross that Gury "teaches a

donation promised on oath, but not yet given, is not binding.' Bishop Moran said Gury does not teach this, and then gave the real question of Gunv-viz., « Does a donation promised on oath, but not accepted, impose ou obligation ? " To which the Ilev. Lindsay Mackie replies, « No doubt the Southern 2T, 7" T'rl? *T P °, int hew " b 9r9 r WW «»*« instead of rr m l So J lt ?? d ? es the rev - gentleman understand about the question, that he is actually under the impression that in Gray b question the word accepted andi the word receMedxnc&n precisely the same thing, and here again he shows how little qualified he is to pronounce an opinion on Gury's teaching It is clear neither Cartwright, from whom it, would appear the Southern Cross borrowed this precious charge against Gray, nor the Rev. Lindsay Mackie with Gury in his hands understood Gary's question. They understand the word* donation m a sense of their own, ,not in Gury's They cvi * dently do not know what Moral Theologians mean by donation. In theology donation is a contract; by which a donor actually deprives himself in an irrevocable manner of something m favour of a recipient, who has accepted the gift." Gury vol. j p. 481. Donation does not exist until there is acceptation. It is a contract ; there are two parties to it the donor and the acceptor; there must be mutual agreement JNow, a gift may be accepted in two ways—either by actually receiving it, or by intimating to the donor the accession of the recipient to the contract before the actual delivery of the gift. Until such acceptance is given in one or the other of these ways the contract does not exist. Gury's answer is— Ist. A donation promised on oath, but not accepted, does not impose an obligation, because an oath follows the nature of the act, but a donation before acceptance is not firm. 2 Gury gives the teaching of Layman, who says a donation promised on oath does bind ; because an oath is to be observed, whenever it can be kept without sin. In reference to the Ist. opinion we find it agrees with what Paley the great Protestant moralist lays down : « Promissory oaths," he says, "are not binding where the promise itself would not be so," Moral Philosophy, b. in. pt. i. c. 16. And he says moreover, in reference to promises, that promises before acceptance arc not binding, for in that case they are to be regarded as a resolution in' the mind of the promisor which may lie altered at pleasure C 5 1 amsy then, it seems, agrees with Gury's first decision lint Ctury is careful to add the affirmative opinion of Layman, who teaches an oath is to bo observed, when it can be : kept without sin. The teaching, then, attributed to Gumon this point is- not (jury's ; and it is also clear that the Key. Lindsay Mackie docs not understand the meaning of donation, and that he has kept back the fact that Gury had given Layman's opinion. In our leader last week, the fourth question— viz., in reference to the concealment of his conversion to Rome by a Protestant clergyman was discussed. It is not necessary, therefore, to repeat here the contents of that leader. In the fifth place Gury is charged with saying—" That acts of chanty are only incumbent on those who are tolerably well off " Bishop Moban answered— « There is no such teaching in p U5" adding, he supposed, reference was made to the question, " Who are bound to, and can give alms ?" Tte Rev. Lindsay Mackie replies • •On turning to p. U5, I find something so very like this teaching that it might easily be taken for it." This is an admission that the charge here made against Gury is not to be found in his work, but only something very like it. Is not this a proof of the want of accuracy, the recklessness with which the Rev. Lindsay Mackie and the Southern Cross assail the character of Catholics ? When a man's character is assailed it ia the truth, not something very likS it that should be told. The word charity has a much wider significance than the word alms, and includes under it many obligations besides that of alms deeds. And it by no means follows that a man not bound to give alms would not be bound to acts of charity. The gentlemen, therefore, who have taken upon themselves to spread abroad injurious charges against Catholics should be exact, and state precisely what Gury really says, and not something very like it. But the Rev. Lindsay Mackie takes up the question of alms deeds, on which he is virtuously eloquent. He could find nothing bearing on the question in vol. i. p.p. 139, UO, referred to by Bishop Mohan, though p. 1J.9 contains Gury's teaching on the order of charity, from which he could have learned what great sacrifices of property people are at times obliged to make for the relief of the necessities spiritual and temporal, of their neighbour. What Gury teaches as a general principle in reference to the obligation of giving alms to poor people in ordinary necessity does not seem to satisfy the generous heart of the open-handed Rev. Lindsay Mackie. Gury according to him, is far too niggardly. Well, it is to be wished that many amongst Christians of all denominations went as far in the discharge of the duties of alms deeds, or even nearly as far, as Gury

? fill ? T to g ° hl ° rdinary cil 'c^tances. Of course as CyjßT teaches ; m great and a fortiori, in extreme necessity, the duty Guby ZSr" d w aUdS gl ' eater SaCrffiCeS than in common 'necessity' Guby teaches that in common necessity men are bound to give alms, and largely out of their superfluities, but that in the gfeat e f/wt. neCeSßl^ ° f tbe nei S hbour > *ey are bound to give alms out of the things which are necessary for themselves. So much as™ Gußvsteaclnngm reference to the strict obligation of giving alms° under pain of grievous sin. The Rev. Lindsay Maukie concludes his dissertation on this subject with these words, « How much better is the Moral Theology of the Divine Master- Give anl tflth S T a y gOOd meaSUre ' * rcssed dowu > and **«i together, and.runmug over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the measure that you meet withal it shall be measured to you SS n J' 28 ' J*° ° ne WOuld moife sincei " cl y a °<*pt this teaching than Gitey ; but the question at present is not what is better, but what ,s it that Guey really teaches, and whether the Rev. Lindsay Mackie has misrepresented him. The text quoted will not prove that the Rev. Lindsay Mackie has not misrepresented Gury's tcHcoinsf, The sixth charge against Guky is that he teaches-- TLat a man is not bound to release an innocent person charged with the crime he has himself committed." Bishop Moean said this is a question which Guby does not even discuss in the place referred to, and Bishop Moran repeats this assertion. The Rev. Lindsay Mackie St Smtheni CrOSS ** very fair exhibition of Guey s teaching on the point nnder discussion. So far from this being the case, the fact is neither the Southern Cross nor the Rev Lindsay Mackib understands the question discussed by gury in the place referred to by the Cross. The question is not about releasing an innocent person, but in reference to a strict obligation of restitution. These are two distinct and different things. Neither is it m reference to the sinfulness of the act of the person who comniitted the crime: and there is not the least foundation for the following words of the Rev. Lindsay Mackie :- ' Here, as usual full provision is made for the escape of the criminal, no matter what may happen either to the man from whom the theft was made or the mail to whom the theft was imputed." This is the grossest perversion of Uury s teaching. It is absolutely false to say, full provision is made for the escape of tbe crimiual from his obligation towards anyone mere is not one word in Guhy to justify such a statement. In the nrst place the question discussed docs not in any sense refer to the criminal's obligation towards the person from whom the theft was made. Such a question is not put, is not discussed, is not in any way even insinuated. The question asked by Gury refers solely to the criminal s obliga.iou of restitution towards the person to whom the theft was untruly imputed. This and this alone is the question discussed and ' on this question Gury's teaching is that, if the damage has not been caused by the theft, but has arisen accidentally from it, there is not an obligation of restitution. But it does not follow that because Gury teaches there is not, under certain clearly denned circumstances, an obligation of restitution, he therefore teaches there is no i obligation of restitution to any one— or that there are not obligations on other grounds. It often happens that a man, under no obligation of restitution, is at the same time under obligations of charity" or of some other virtue. Gury's decisions are given on the cases put by i himself, and subject to the circumstances stated by himself, not on the suppositions made for him by the Southern Cross and the Rev. Lindsay Mackie. In this case, also, the teaching of Gury has been grossly misrepresented. He does not in any way teach what has been attributed to him by the Croxs and the Rev. Lindsay Mackib. Every man who tins grievously, and de&crvcs punishment, is not bound to restitution. And Guky does not say iv the case under dis- ' cussion that the thief is not bound to restitution to the man from whom the theft was made, nor does he say he is free from sin and also free from all obligation towards the man to whom his theft was imputed, though, he says, he may not, in a certain supposition, "be under an obligation of restitution for the damage arising accidentally from his theft to tho latter. The Rev. Lindsay Mackie's treatment of this subject is not only not warranted by anything to be found in Gury, but is condemned by his actual teaching. In the seventh place, Gury is charged with teaching « That a person may set poison and a snare in a place where his enemy may perchance pass with the express intention of killing him." Bishop Moran ausweied, " It is simply a deliberate falsehood to say that Gury teaches this ;'" and he again says, it is a deliberate falsehood. In reference to this charge, the Rev. Lindsay Mackie is not ashamed to write the folloAving words, " Atrocious truly, and if on examination it is found that this grace allegation of the Southern Cross has even &o slight an appearance of beiugimplied in the teaching of Gury as that an ordinary reader might be left iv doubt on the °point. we shall have cause to congratulate ourselves that along with the Com/). of Moral Theology, the policeman and the hangman have also been acclimatised iv this Southern Hemisphere." It is evident from this that the Rev. Lindsay Mackie regards this charge as atrocious and as a grave allegation ; it is also evident that he despairs of establishing it by any legitimate process-, and that what he attributes to Guky

has, on his own showing, only such a slight ajywranco of being implied in the teaching of Guey as that an ordinary reader might be left in doubt on the point. It is an implied teaching, then, and can only be said to be even implied on so slight an appearance of truth as might leave an ordinary reader in doubt. And on such a doubtful foundation as this the Ray. Lindsay jMackie has no hesitation whatever in charging Guby with certainly teaching an atrocious doctrine, a doctrine involving a grave allegation. What will resonable, candid men think of such conduct as this 1 A Catholic thelogian, and through him all Catholics, arc accused of teaching the lawfulness of murder, on the ground that the Rev. Lindsay Mackie thinks an ordinary reader might doubt as to Gury's meaning This needs no further comment. After giving what Gury says, without understanding the meaning of Gury's words on the subject matter discussed, the Rev. Lindsay Mackib continues: "In the above quotations we have four things. Ist. The cases of two men who are murderers in more than intention supposed, against whom the con- | science of mankind would rise in moral indignation and demand that they be dealt with as guilty of capital offences. 2. We have a recognised authority in Jesuit morality, teaching youth, who are to be the teachers of our citizens, thatwhether there be guilt iv these atrocious cases supposed is a question on which the most reverend theologians are diyided-some argue for, sonis against." No, this is not true ; Guey does not teach this ; Gury does not teach anything like this ; there is not one word in Gury calculated to leave any man under the impression that it is doubtful whether there be guilt m these atrocious cases. Gury doss not even discuss in this place the question whether there is guilt in these cases. He is engaged on altogether another question, vh., whether in these cases these men are the unjust cause of death. By an unjust cause is here meant a cause which m commutative justice involves an obligation of restitution. l bis is precisely the question which G ury discusses. Gury's theology teaches that the men in these cases are most wicked, most criminal ; but the question, he says, which is here disputed is whether the act from which death results is of that class of acts which is always accompanied with an obligation of restitution. 2nd. The Rev. Lindsay Mackie says ; "We have it asserted by Guey that tne more common view seems to be that there is no guilt iv the cases supposed." No, Gury does not say so. What he says is. that it is the more common opinion that there is not in them that species of guilt that brings with it an obligation of restitution. 4. The Rev. Lindsay Mackie says, and the italics are his own : «We have it aQivmed that the vicn- , e h ieh attache* guilt rest* on no solid foundation. Not by Gury, who says the contrary. GurVs words arc, I era *ententia affirmat, tu»i btjirwo fundamrnto inni.v<t." Every Latin scholar knows that this means, <• In truth an opinion restin" on a foundation not weak affirms." What Gury then really says is, the affirmative opinion rests on a strong foundation, lie Rev. Lindsay Mackie here again attributes to Gury not only what he has not said, but the contrary. (To do continued.) *%* P. Moran,