Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 50, 18 September 1891, Page 1

Current Topics

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

What is the meaning of the rumour as to preA suggestive cautions taken by the Italian Government to bbpobt. prevent the holding of the next conclave outside the limits of their country 1 It is possibly the outcome of those idle speculations which constantly busy themselves with matters concerning the Church, and with which we are familiarly acquainted. But there is still a possibility that there are come grounds for the report, and that the enemies of the Church in Italy are really forming hopes of making the conclave subservient to their ends. There are, it is true, no particular reasons to suppose that the close of the present Pontificate is approaching. The Pope is in good health, and on his late appearance in public, that is during the recent consistory, his vigour was such as to attract attention and excite surprise. His Holiness, however, is an aged man, and life at his advanced years is doubly uncertain. The Italian Government therefore, may be considering the matter and adopting steps to serve their purpose when the time arrives. The design is, we are told, to prevent a foreign Pope and a foreign conclave away from Borne. 11 All Italian confidential negotiations with the great Powers are believed to be inspired with the dominating idea that Italy will respect and safely guard the liberty of the conclave." But if this idea be just there is no need for the Italian Government to concern themselves as to the holding of the conclave abroad. It would only be with the best reasons for believing that the conclave would not be respected that the Sacred College would assemble anywhere except in Borne. The bare mention of such an idea makes the situation Buspicious, especially if, as reported, the assurance in question is spoken of as a dissuasive to the Powers from offering the Cardinals an asylum. We have no fear respecting the independence of the conclave. Prior to the holding of the last, appearances were strong that it would be held under difficult circumstances, and that an attempt would be made to influence its choice. But when the time actually came to hold it, the condition of Europe was such that none of the Powers might venture to move in the matter. Our confidence is that, in the next instance also, God will provide. But let us suppose that the enemy were to triumph and that a Pope was forced upon tbe Cardinals against their will. We make tbe supposition for tbe sake of argument and by no means admitting anything of the kind to be possible. History has taught the enemies of the Church a lesson tbat even they might recollect. It would not be the first time that inimical hopes had been based on tbe election of a particular Pope. But the Papacy, they tell us, is too strong for its occupant ana subdues him to a line of conduct different from that expected of him Catholic writers of note explain the matter otherwise and point out to us the action of divine grace in protecting the Church. We do not know whether there is any truth in the report to which we allude or whether it is another invention of the gossiping journalist. But if it be true that the Italian Government is making any such proposal to other Governments as that mentioned, it is evident the design is sinister. The Sacred College will certainly understand the matter aright and conform their action to it. When we find that they propose to hold the conclave elsewhere we Bhall understand their reason for doing so. We may be convinced that, should they arrive at such a determination, the efforts of the Italian Government to shut them out of all countries fit for the purpose will be fruitless. We trust that comparatively many years may still elapse before the life of the sovereign Pontiff now gloriously reigning terminates, but when it does, we Bhall find the place filled by one no less qualified ►for the duties it demands and no less entitled to the confidence and veneration of the Catholic people. Tbe human means, perhaps, by which this is brought about will be the warning given to the Catholic world by some such report as that of which we have spoken and the resolute attitude, in consequence, adopted by them.

An ancient document has recently been discovered an important which has a bearing on some arguments employed BMCOVKBY. by the opponents of Catholic truth. We allude to the " Apology of Aristides," a Syriac manuscript found by an American professor in an Eastern monastery, and on wbiob Professor Stokes, a high English Protestant authority, comments in the Contemporary Mevisrv for July. Professor Stokes accepts this document as the apology laid, early in the second century, before the Emperor Adrian in favour of the Christians, as mentioned by Eusebius, and which led to an intermission of persecution. While we are awaiting the fuller and more satisfactory commentary we may expect from some authoritative Catholic source, and it is suggestive that Professor Stokea admits there are points in the manuscript on which controversy may arise, we would remark on a passage or two by which our notice has been especially attracted. Aristidea the author of this apology, was a convert to the Christian faith. Ho had been a Greek philosopher, and waß, therefore, particularly qualified to judge as to the difference between the moral code of the heathen creedß prevailing at his time and that which was taught by the Christian Church. He had personally seen the heathen syitem proved by its fruits and knew what it was worth. It is, consequently, of significance to find him insisting to the Emperor whom be addressed on the great comparative excellence of the new creed. It is on the superior morality to be derived from its teaching that he pleads in favour of the Christian religion, summarising with a powerful hand the abominations that must attend on following the example of the heathen gods. As a philosopher also, he could rightly estimate the effect upon contemporary society of the moral teaching of what is now ancient philosophy and could conclude justly as to its practical value. His testimony, therefore, applies to and confutes certain of the agnostic arguments of our own day. In opposition to the tenets of religious Protestantism, it woultl seem that the knowledge Aristides had of the Christian doctrine, was principally derived by him from oral teaching or tradition. He makes no mention of the books of the New Testament in bis apology, and does not appear to have been acquainted with them. This difficulty, with its bearing on the Protestant position, Professor Stokes sees and in some degree acknowledges. He explains it by the fact that the canon of Scripture had not been as yet fixed on. But if the teaching of the Church in the early ages, those of the martyrs, was based on authority and tradition, how could the Bible, and the Bible alone, afterwards become the rule of faith 1 Another point that seems proved by the manuscript referred to is the reliability of early ecclesiastical writers— a matter that has been greatly called in question by non-Catholic historians, divines, and men of letters generally. The statement of Eusebius as to this apology of Aristides obtained little reliance. Nay, even when, some few years ago, a fragment of it was found included in some other writings, its authenticity was discredited — more particularly by M . Benao. To do M. Kenan justice, however, he founded his rejection on the employment of some terminology that he said was subsequent to the assumed date of the writing, and which has actually been now proved to have been introduced by copyists at a later period. Still, the tendency is to deny anything of the kind. Scepticism of this sort receives another check by the discover} to which we allude. We can perceive, even from the meagre details given by Professor Stokes that, like every discovery of a similar natnre, the document referred to supports the testimony of antiquity and the claims of the Catholic Church.

Loed Salisbury's reply to the protest made in the malicious House of Lords against the purchase by the levity. Chantrey trustees of Mr Calderon's outrage on the memory of St. Elizabeth was something even worse than flippant. To reply to any grave remonstrance by light remarks betrays a tone of mind that is anything lather than admirable. But Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister, entered on a scoffing commentary respecting the canon of art and its dealing with the nude in relation to a subject which, as he was perfectly aware, narrowly affected the religious jsentiments of a large body of the people whose interests, moral as well as material, he was bound to consult for. Never were

hamoroas remarks or a toue of levity more out of place. The allusion made by Lord Salisbury, moreover, to pictures of the Magdalen painted respectively by Guercino and Oorreggio, as illustrative of what was allowed to sacred art in Catholic countries, was nothing to the purpose. In neither case, although the figure is not draped, as much as perhaps might be desirable, is there the slightest suggestion of indecent action. In Mr Oalderon's picture this is more than suggested ; it is glaring and significant. The artist may be comparatively excusable. He may have been dull enough to accept, in all good faith, as literal expressions commonly used in a figurative sense, and certainly so used in the instance in question. He may have been so carried away by hid artistic conception as to lose eight of propriety and to act as a man in a " fine frenzy." No excuse, bow. ever, applies to the cool-headed, animmaginative, statesman. He spoke with full recollection, and of a matter concerning which, notwitb« standing his jesting allusion to a picture in " Punch " ai all he had Been of it, he was perfectly well informed. Bigotry against the Catholic Church and contempt for Catholic feeling were his only possible motives. And yet the tendency of English Catholic opinion is to regard the party of which Lord Salisbury is the sympathetic head and leader as the surest reliance and the sole guardian of Catholic hopes.

To whom is the Emperor William indebted for Stupid those accounts of his behaviour on board the ImRUBBIBH. perial yacht? Has his Majesty to thank "his Socialist subjects, or his re vengeful Gallic enemies ? Or does he simply owe a debt to some journalist in want of a sensation to " tickle " his readers and determined to go the whole hog ? The whole hog it has been with a vengeance. Screaming extravagance is no name for the inventions to which wo allude. Indeed they have been bo much overdone as to fail in their intended effect. It is possible for us to believe that, as asserted, the Emperor is in the habit of making an excessive use of morphia. He is said to suffer from some disease of the ear which is sometimes very painful. That he sometimes shows signs of doing so is not incredible,— bat who could believe this story of wild gambols far outdoing the maddeßt freaks narrated of the late unfortunate King of Bavaria ? I The story, we are told, was wired from Berlin and printed in some of the Paris papers. This part of the report we are inclined to credit. The inventions have nothing of the bright French wit in them, but savour of a heavy sport iveness not out of keeping with what we know of the Teutonic temperament. Munchausen, let ns also remember, was a German. We are inclined further to believe that the report is false which accredits the Emperor with annoyance at these stories. If he is so, indeed, he gives some colour to their foundation, for no man in his full stnses could pay them any regard. To swell the mall news by such raw extravagance is anything rather than flattering to the intelligence of the" colonies. They have no interest ; they are not even amusing.

" More than 700,000 persons, including th« Austrian THB pilgrim- Prince Azay and other Austrian nobility, have age to trbves. visited Treves to inspect the ' holy coat ' exhibited

there." Thia is a cablegram under date, Berlin, September 14. We do not know of any particular distinction which characterises the Austrian Prince Azay, nor do we indeed know whether or not any such prince is in existence. Indeed, there seems no sufficient reason for singling out the Austrian nobility for especial mention, as doubtless Catholic noblemen and noble-women from all the countries of Europe have also gone, or will go, to venetate the relic. The number of pilgrims spoken of, though large, is not excessive. The Bishop of Treves mentions ia a pastoral letter, issued by him on the subject, that in 1844, when the last exposition was made, the number of pilgrims exceeded oce million, and the means of travelling are now much easier and more convenient, but some weeks still remain in which, no doubt, the numbers will be filled up. As to the genuineness of the relic, it affords a subject for scofling to the non-Catholic world, as, iv fact, we have seen among ourselves. And yet any man capable of forming sound judgments may be challenged to produce a cool, well-considered and unprejudiced argument against it. Some months ago we ourselves had occasion to refer to the matter, and we then pointed out, in an argument we need not now repeat, how one of the characteristics of human nature was the preservation of relics of those who had been beloved or honoured. The Bishop of Treves, we find in his pastoral, refers to this.— 14 Indeed," he writes, " it is part of human nature to keep and foster lovingly things which belonged to persons whom we loved." The Bishop, nevertheless, does not insist that even this great relic, ancient as it is and well supported by tradition, is to be received as genuine under penalty of an error in faith. "A Catholic," he explains, '•who wantonly or without grave reasons doubts or rejects the authenticity of a certain relic may appear arrogant and irreverent but he is not for that to be considered erring in faith." The Bishop goes on to reason from human testimony — the only proof, he says, of the authenticity of any relic, as of any other historic fact. He

appeals to the reputation of his predecessors in the See of St Eucbarius as that of prelates not easily imposed upon, and tbemselTM incapable of imposition. But to satisfy all reasonable doubts, he add?, he had a particular examination made. "In the presence of the Chapter of the Cathedral, and some competent judges, this examination took place last summer, and lasted several days. The result was that theie was nothing found tbat contradicted the old traditions of the Church of Treves." That the Holy Coat is therefore, that which is claimed for it, we may justly conclude, and tbat it may be visited with edification and spirital profit cannot be doubted. This must still be the case, even were the proofs of genuineness much less, for, at least, the coat would still be of such a kind as was worn by the Saviour, and its presence and associations must enable those who saw it to realise more vividly the great miracle of the incarnation, tbat miracle which being believed and realised, all other miraculous events would seem easy of acceptance. Infidels consistently, but still without reason, may ridicule the veneration of the Holy Coat, but Christians who do so act, not only without ieason, but without consistency. Catholics, who visit this relic, are both reasonable and consistent. It speaks well for the vitality and prospects of the Church that such numbers are availing themselves of the privileges afforded them.