THE POPE AND HIS CRITICS

New Zealand Tablet, 21 March 1912, Page 15

THE POPE AND HIS CRITICS

THE MOTU PROPRIO

In writing; this I do not set before me the useless task of seeking to slay. the fallen (says M. O'R in the Dublin Leader) . The Archbishop of Dublin has beaten flat to the ground those newest defenders of the civil liberty of Catholics in Ireland. It is a strange function they have assumed. Let us hope they will take the beating in a manner worthy of warriors-. I propose to consider the meaning of this Motu, Proprio, which has so harrowed the consciences of certain politicians and journalists for the sake of the civil liberties of the Catholics of Ireland. The political conscience of those excellent folk seems to be subject to an intermittent fever of political scruple whenever an election appears on the horizon. The last epidemic came with the Decree Ne Temere, which, by the way, they usually pronounced badly. They were hardly convalescent, when the Moty Propria brings on a relapse, and they are at high temperature again. And here also they show; themselves unable to translate a very simple Latin phrase, which they quote from the Constitution Apostolicae-Sedis. According: to them, 1 praeter canonicas dispbsitiones ' means ' without canonical (dispensation:' Yet, strangely enough, Mr. Campbell, M.P., translated it thus in a speech which he made at a meeting of the Irish Unionist Alliance in Dublin on January 4. He said that the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis excommunicated ' those who compelled, whet he?'directly or indirectly, lay judges to summon ecclesiastical persons before lay tribunals without canonical dispensation 'That section of the Constitution would apply to . '• • " > ; . All Catholics Everywhere, ■ « if the Pope ordained it so. Yet there are many places to which it does not apply. How has that come about? In this way. Special .Pontifical arrangements have been made with certain countries, in virtue of which it applies to those countries in various degrees, or not at all; they are called Concordats. Again, through custom it does not apply to some countries. It is custom that leaves it inapplicable to Germany; not because the Pope has granted a' dispensation ' to Germany, as the 'Amateur Canonists say. No dispensation has been granted, because none was necessary. A country does not need a dispensation from a law which does not apply to it; just as a man aged seventy does not need a dispensation from the law of fasting, since that law does not apply to him. Some politicians in Germany raised a cry, such as their political counterparts raise in. Ireland, in preparation for the next elections. The German Catholics knew that, owing, to a contrary custom, the Motu Proprio did not apply to Germany; they asked the Roman authorities if it was so, and these declared that it was. But that declaration was not a dispensation. For a like reason, according to the evidence of Cardinal Cullen, as quoted by the Archbishop of Dublin, the : Motu Proprio does not appear to apply to Ireland. It depends on a matter of fact —Has there been a custom which brought the Priviler/ium Fori into disuse in Ireland ? This fact is unquestionable, at any rate that no Catholic.who thought he had a cause of complaint against a priest in Ireland has ever found any impediment in the way of his bringing that priest before a Civil Court. Let ' Amateur Canonists' repudiate expert opinion as they may, and try to stir up their friends to fury and to manufactured fear, the fact remains as I have just stated: not even an Amateur Canonist' can muddle it into doubt. Are those Catholics all excommunicated ? If not, how have they escaped unless the law has, fallen into disuse by the custom attested by Cardinal Cullen ? In this one respect the Motu Proprio has made no change on the past; it leaves - untouched whatever custom existed before it. But let us now suppose that the Motu Propria does apply to Ireland. . •'- . •,-■ In What Condition Would it Place Us ? Ist. It does hot apply to non-Catholics in any case. Those need have no fear of this awful Matu Propria

for it does not touch them, and cannot touch them, directly or indirectly. The Ne Temere might occasionally • concern one of them indirectly; but the Motu Proprio does not touch them in any sense. /'Why, then, this concern';and noise? 'if ~ ~ : 2nd. It concerns Catholics only; consequently I need make remark on the words of Mr. Campbell, who spoke of it as ' this arrogant and insolent Decree.' I will only .say that, his manner of expression is not -very elegant. Moreover, since he' speaks thus of a solemn act of the Pope, one does not easily understand the process by which he has come to have that respect for the Archbishop of Dublin which he professes, or for Mr. Redmond and the Catholics of Ireland, lay and cleric, of whom ; he ; has made himself the advocate. According to him, the Motu -Proprio strikes"' a deadly blow at the sanctity and security of property and civil rights/: Well, even though it applied to Ireland; it could apply to Catholics only; and he may leave to the Catholics of Ireland the duty of protecting their property, their civil rights, and rights more sacred still, as they have often had to protect them ) before—from the Pope. ■ •■. : . - 3rd: How, then, would the Motu . Proprio affect Catholics, if it applied to Ireland ? Mr. Campbell said that he did not require to go to any expert to tell him what that Decree meant.' Let us, then, take from his own words an. illustration of how he understands its meaning without the: aid of an expert. He says: 'The two law officers;of the Crown in Ireland to-day are both high-minded gentlemen; they are both Roman Catholics.; They might be called upon any day in .the exercise of-their duty to their sovereign to put the law in force against a Catholic priest." : If they did .so, ipso facto, ; they incurred excommunication.'' I have only to refer the reader how to his own .translation, bad as it is, which I-have already quoted; anyone will at once see how he; : misrepresents the meaning' of the Constitution. The excommunication is against those who compel lay judges to summon ecclesiastical .persons before a lay tribunal.' etc. Now/if we are to accept Mr. Campbell's interpretation, we must think that the judges are one and ; the same with those who compel them.: Not an easy thing to think ! - Evidently, then, he did need an expert; very badly. The truth is' section 'Cogentes' of the Constitution Apostolical Sedis/ and the recent Motu Proprio; do -riot apply to judges, or magistrates, or to such functionaries at allwere never meant to apply to them. They apply to those who compel the judges. \ Mr. Campbell was quite correct when he said that the Decree is ' perfectly plainit speaks for itself.' It is equally plain that he, with great impropriety, misrepresents it, \ But I cannot expect him to assent to my interpretation, since he casts aside the Archbishop of Dublin. % Perhaps, then, "lie will accept the interpretation of the Holy/ Office—same authority, whence emanated the Constitution Apostolicae Sedts, .He will hardly: refuse to think that .the Pope, who; is Prefect of the Holy Office, knows the meaning of his own words. Well, then, an Instruction was issued by the Holy Office on June 15, 1870, which declared that 'the excommunication did not. affect subordinates, even though they be judges.' The Holy Office also on January 23, 1886, declared that the excommunication 'affected only legislators and other such authorities.'" tt t 4th. But that Letter of Instruction issued by the Holy Office in 1886 adds that in those places where the Decree applies, persons are bound to get permission from their bishop before they can bring an ecclesiastic Before ( a Civil Court; which permission, the Holy Office adds, 'the bishop shall never refuse, in case he fails to reconcile the parties.' How, then, are " The Civil Rights of Catholics Interfered With? An ecclesiastic owes'another Catholic (priest or layman) ±.IOO, let us say, or these allege that he owes it - The MoUi Propria binds them to have recourse to their bishop m order to have the matter settled amicably i the bishop.does not succeed in settling it, he is not left free to give or to refuse his consent to their sum moning the ecclesiastic before a Civil Court; the Holy Office says that 'he shall never refuse.' Even in those times and countries, when and where Ecclesiastical

Courts existed to try, the Civil Cases of clerics, the, purpose of the Pri'vilegium Fori was not to grant to ecclesiastics immunity from the Civil Law of their country, but that in their civil cases they should be tried before an Ecclesiastical Court. ' The privilege was not as to the law of the land, but as to the Court which was to try them according to that law. . What the Motu Progrio orders is just what Catholic instinct moves every Catholic worthy of the name to : do. Catholics in Ireland who know nothing about Motu Propria, and who do not want to know, if they think they have a cause of complaint against a priest in the way of debt or otherwise, would make their complaint first to the bishop. If he failed to adjust matters, then they go to the Civil Courts; permission to do which, as the Holy Office lays down, the bishop shall never refuse.' Thus this awful Motu Propria orders what all true Catholics, and many Protestants, would always do, and of their own accord, from a true sense of the fitness of things. Why, then, has this Motu Proprio been issued? The Motu Proprio itself makes its purpose quite clear to all who know enough to read and understand a few simple Latin sentences. It is because, in certain places, some nominal Catholics have, from sheer malignity, and, without any cause, dragged priests, bishops, and even Cardinals, before civil tribunals where civil justice did not await the defendants. The purpose of the Pope is that if such persons persist in such a course they shall, not do so under the name of Catholics for he attaches the censure of excommunication to it, thus putting them outside the pale of the Church. And should not that very censure of excommunication persuade -anyone of common sense that the Motu Projirio does not apply to non-Catholics ? These are not within the pale of the Church; and how could one be put without it who has never been within it ? One might as reasonably think that the rules for expulsion in an Orange Lodge applied to those who have never been members of that interesting confraternity. sth. What this awful Motu Proprio ordains, then, is just what common sense, fraternal charity, and religious propriety would suggest to any man, or association of men, with refined feelings. And, in fact, something parallel exists in every society. Are there no rules of expulsion in the Carlton Club, in the Unionist Alliance, or in Orange Lodges? May a member of any of those societies do what he likes and still remain a member ? Quite recentlv Mr. Edward Martyn was expelled from the Kildare Street Club. He will not, I hope, blame me for recalling the fact; that excommunication left his honor unsullied, and it need not weigh heavily on him. Unless I mistake, the Church of England has its Ecclesiastical Court for such purpose as the Motu Projirio was issued to meet. Anyone who opens Hallam's Middle Ages at that part of the 7th chapter in which he writes about Excommunication will find the following : —' The spiritual courts in England, whose jurisdiction is so multifarious, and in general so little of a religious nature, had- till lately no means of compelling an appearance much leas of enforcing a sentence, hut by excommunication.' Hallam says in a note: 'By a recent statute, the 33 George 3rd, chap. 127, the writ, de excommunicato capiendo, as a process in contempt was abolished in England, but retained in Ireland? I do not know English Law enough to say whether it is still retained in Ireland ; but Mr. Campbell, or some other Canonist, can tell us. Of course, both in England and in Ireland they have rules for expulsion or excommunication. There are such rules in every society, union, or club in the country. There is a similar rule in" the Scotch Presbyterian Church. The Wesleyans have a similar rule. But a rule more like, the "Motu Proprio than any of these is in s ? : The Constitutions of Trinity College. Mr. Campbell should know it, for I believe he represents that constituency in Parliament J perhaps was educated there. But it is in Latinvery easy Latin arid easily understood ; so I.give the rule in the original. According to Letters Patent of 13 Charles I.—' Qmnes lites domesticae intra Collegium et cognoscantur et (si fieri potest) dijudicentur. Qui foras vero aliquem in

jus vocaverit, sine Praepositi et ma lis partis Socio rum Senior um Consensu, Collegio Amoveatur.' In English it- reads:—' All. domestic differences shall be examined and if possible decided within the College, lie who brings another into Court without the consent of the Provost and the majority of .the Senidr Fellows shall be expelled from the College.' _ That rule is so like the Motu Proprio in every particular, excommunication and all, that one would think the Pope based his Decree on this Trinity College rule, or had consulted- the Provost. Would anyone ever think that, of all places in the world, the exact counterpart of this awful Motu Proprio should be found in Trinity College/the Mecca of Mr. Campbell? Yet, there it is, in the original Latin for those who can read it; in English for those who cannot. Ido not suggest now that the people of Dublin hold meetings to protect the civil rights of the students, professors, and Fellows of Trinity from one another, and to protest against a rule of expulsion which, to use Mr. Campbell's words, ' alms a deadly blow at the sanctity and security of property.' Yet, it is very suggestive. For, I suppose the inmates of that institution sometimes contract debts; and it is, perhaps, possible that they may sometimes disport themselves more violently and lawlessly than elegantly behind those gates which guard that sanctuary of law and order.' But those institutions I have named have been born into privileges—the privilegimn fori and others. They have enjoyed them so long and exclusively that men of position like Mr. Campbell can speak without shame, in a Catholic city and country, of a solemn act of the Pope which affects Catholics only, as an arrogant and insolent Decree.' They have been so long accustomed to think and speak as Mr. Campbell has spoken that they are either regardless or unconscious of their offensiveness. If the Catholics of Dublin held a meeting, and resolved that, ' Since the Motu Propria, even though it applied to Ireland, affected Catholics only, they requested him and his friends to mind their own business,' I am inclined to think that Mr. Campbell would be surprised at their developed audacity, and would complain of it. Such has been the fruit "of Protestant privilege in Ireland ; they cannot reconcile themselves to the change which a century has made ; they cannot, or will not, understand it. Hence, what is of Divine right in a Protestant, in the Pope or in a Papist is that sin 'which shall not be forgiven in this life, nor in the life to come.'